Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bradford Corporation Bill (by Order),

Buxton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

Greenock Burgh Extension, etc., Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Leeds Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (by Order),

Smethwick Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

West Bromwich Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.

Copy ordered of "Statement of Particulars of a Loan of which part of the balance outstanding is proposed to be
remitted or written off from the assets of the Local Loans Fund (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 136, of Session 1924–25)."—[Mr. McNeill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SLAVERY CONVENTION (LEAGUE OF NATIONS).

Mr. W. BAKER: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that paragraph 166 of the Report of the British delegates to the Seventh Assembly of the League of Nations contains a reservation on behalf of the Government of India in respect of the Slavery Convention; and whether he will state the reasons which made that reservation necessary?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I will send the hon. Member a copy of the speech made at Geneva by the leader of the Indian delegation, which explains clearly the reasons for the reservation made.

BENGAL CRIMINAL ORDINANCE ACT (DETINUES).

Mr. THURTLE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to indicate the result of the communications of his Department with the Government of India regarding the prisoners in India who have been detained for over two years without trial under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance Act?

Earl WINTERTON: The upshot of the very full examination which this matter has received in the last few months has been publicly announced recently in India by the Governor-General in his address to the Indian Legislature, on 24th January, and by the Home Member speaking on behalf of the Government of India and the Bengal Government in the Debate which took place in the Assembly a few days later. Put as shortly as possible, the policy agreed upon by the Government of India and the Government of Bengal is this: The sole object of the Government in using the special powers which this Act gives them is to prevent
terrorist outrages, and they desire to keep no one under restraint a day longer than is necessary to secure teat object. Their policy is accordingly to relax restrictions and where possible to release as and when this becomes feasible with safety to the public. But, since the conspiracy to commit these outrages has not been suppressed, before releases can be sanctioned the Government must be satisfied that those released would not employ their freedom to engage in terrorist outrages. This postulates an undertaking, which would not involve any humiliating admission as regards the past. Such an undertaking, if given, would be an important factor in the Government's decision, hut could not of itself be accepted as automatically ensuring release.

Mr. THURTLE: Do I understand that the Noble Lord is now inviting these detenus to give an undertaking that they will not participate in any method of violence in future?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. Gentleman can draw his own deductions from the answer.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that at least one of these prisoners is in a very dangerous state of health—I refer to Mr. S. C. Bose—and is it the intention of the Government to murder that man?

Mr. JOHNSTON: In the phrase used by the Noble Lord to the effect that he would not require from them any humiliating admission with regard to the past, does that mean that they are to make any statement of any kind that they have participated in terrorist agitation in the past?

Earl WINTERTON: No; what I intended to convey by those words was that the undertaking would be an undertaking with regard to the future.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the phrase used by the Noble Lord mean that any detenu has to make any admission regarding participation in terrorist agitation in the past of any kind?

Earl WINTERTON: No; the exact opposite is what I intended to convey. What I intend to convey is that the undertaking which will be sought from the particular detenu will be an undertaking
not to engage in terrorist organisation or activities in future.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not obvious that the Government, both in India and here, want to find a way out of the difficulty in which they are, and would it not be better for the Government to take the first step, rather than keep these people in prison simply because on a point of honour they will not say they will not do it in future?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is in the nature of a speech.

COMMUNAL RIOTING (INDORE).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any official information with regard to the communal rioting in Indore?

Earl WINTERTON: The Secretary of State has received from the Government of India reports of the recent disturbance in the City of Indore. It appears that on the 14th February, five persons were killed and about 20 injured in the course of rioting arising from the playing of music by a Hindu procession in front of a mosque. Order was subsequently restored by the State troops and police. On the 15th February, a Mohammedan sub-inspector was stabbed while making investigations. No further outrage has been reported to the Secretary of State. The Indore Darbar have issued orders as to the carrying of arms and sticks, and have prohibited the assemblage of more than five persons.

STRIKE, KHARGPUR.

Mr. ALBERY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House concerning strikes and industrial disturbances in India or trouble at the docks in Ceylon; and whether there is any reason to suppose that such disturbances are the outcome of foreign propaganda of a political nature?

Earl WINTERTON: I have been asked to reply. The Government of Bengal have reported a serious strike, which began on the 9th instant, in the wagon shop of the Bengal-Nagpur Railway, at Khargpur. On the 11th, 800 workmen attempted to stop the working of the line, and it was necessary to clear the
station. The Auxiliary Force was called out to reinforce the police. On the 14th a general strike was called, but this has not been effective, although at other places on the line local strikes occurred. No renewal of disturbances has been reported, and trains are running. I am not aware of any other strikes or disturbances in India, and, as regards Ceylon, the Secretary of State for the Colonies has no knowledge of the matter beyond what has appeared in the Press, and has no reason to suppose there has been any disorder in the Colony. I have not received any information in regard to the last part of the question

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

HANKOW AGREEMENT.

SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN'S STATEMENT.

Mr. CLYNES: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement on the signing of an agreement in China and to give the House any other information?

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information corroborating the report that the Anglo-Chinese agreement relating to the British concession at Hankow has been signed by Mr. Eugene Chen, and whether he can give any further particulars to the House?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I apologise to you, Sir, and to ad concerned for not being in my place when the right hon. Gentleman rose, but a material telegram only reached my hand after I had answered the questions which were put to me earlier this afternoon, and I was trying to get material for a full statement to the House. What I am going to say answers, I think, also a Private Notice question which I have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. A telegram has been received from Mr. O'Malley dated 20th instant.

Mr. JOHN JONES: What is the matter with O'Malley?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: He calls himself Mr. O'Malley, and I call him by the name he chooses. Now if I may get to business. A telegram has been received from Mr. O'Malley, dated the 20th instant, reporting the signature on the evening of the 19th of the agreement in regard to the Hankow concession. The agreement is in the following terms:
"The proper British authorities will summon the annual general meeting of ratepayers in accordance with the Land Regulations on 15th March. The British municipality will thereupon be dissolved and the administration of the Concession area will be formally handed over to the new Chinese municipality. Pending the handing over to the new Chinese municipality on 15th March, the policing of the Concession and the management of the public works and sanitation will be conducted by the Chinese authorities now in charge thereof.
"The Nationalist Government will, upon the dissolution of the British Council, forthwith set up a special Chinese municipality modelled on that of the special administrative district for the administration of the Concession area under regulations which will be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Minister by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Nationalist Government. These regulations will remain in force until such time as arrangements have been negotiated for the amalgamation of the five Hankow Concessions and former Concessions into one unified municipal district."
At the moment of signature certain declarations were made arising out of the negotiations. Mr. Chen gave the following letter to Mr. O'Malley:
I have the honour to communicate to you the regulations which the Nationalist Government will promulgate for the administration of the British concession area at Hankow.
I have not all the details of those regulations, but they are on the lines that I explained to the House the other day. Mr. O'Malley informed Mr. Chen:
I have the honour to assure you that the British authorities concerned will do all that lies in their power to implement and ensure the successful operation of the agreement signed to-day relative to the British concession area at Hankow, and that as far as the British authorities are con-
cerned, Chinese citizens will enjoy and be entitled to the same rights as British subjects in the said area.
Mr. Chen replied:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of to-day's date in which you assure me that the British authorities concerned will do all that lies in their power to implement and ensure the successful operation of the agreement signed to-day relative to the British concession area at Hankow and that as far as the British authorities are concerned Chinese citizens will enjoy and be entitled to the same rights as British subjects in the said area.
I have the honour to assure you in return that the Chinese authorities for their part will likewise do their utmost to implement and ensure the successful operation of the agreement in question and that so far as they are concerned there will he no discrimination against British interests in the adminisstration of the new district.
Mr. Chen further made the following declaration:
Reports reaching the Nationalist Government from many quarters appear to make a re-statement of nationalist policy regarding concessions and international settlements necessary and timely in order to avoid misapprehension and prevent needless apprehension and fear.
In the manifesto of 22nd January the Nationalist Government declared their intention and their immediate readiness to have all questions cutstanding between Nationalist China and the foreign Powers settled by negotiation and agreement. This implicitly applied and it was intended to apply to changes in the status of all concessions and all international settlements in China.
This necessarily means that the policy of the Nationalist Government is not to use force or to countenance the use of force to effect changes in the status of any, or all, concessions and international settlements.
The Nationalist Government have to lay it down that changes in the status of concessions and international settlements, wherever situated in China, are of such vital and national importance that no local or other Chinese authorities save and except the Nationalist Government can negotiate with the foreign Powers concerned in respect thereof.
Mr. O'Malley took note of Mr. Chen's declaration:
That in the manifesto of 22nd January the Nationalist Government declared their intention and their immediate readiness to have all questions outstanding between Nationalist. China and the foreign Powers settled by negotiation and agreement; that this implicitly applied and was intended to apply to the question of the status of British and other Concessions and International settlements in China, and that this necessarily means that the policy of the Nationalist Government is not to use
force or to countenance the use of force to effect changes of status of any or all of the Concessions and International settlements.
As regards the last paragraph of Mr. Chen's declaration, Mr. O'Malley made the following declaration:
His Majesty's Government cannot bind themselves to refuse to enter into negotiations with Chinese officials in any part of China with regard to matters arising in areas where such officials are actually exercising de facto authority.
I think, but I am not certain, that this is embodied in the declaration, or in the letter handed to Mr. Chen. Mr. Chen also announced that:
The Nationalist Government took note of the statement by Sir Austen Chamberlain in the House of Commons on 10th February. The modification in the original plan for the concentration of British forces at Shanghai announced by him is regarded by the Nationalist Government as a concession, which now makes it possible to proceed to the conclusion and signing of an agreement relative to the British Concession area at Hankow. As, however, the landing at Shanghai of British troops even in reduced number and for the strictly limited purpose stated by the Secretary of State is without legal justification, the Nationalist Government have to protest against the landing and presence of such British troops in the International Settlement at Shanghai.
Mr. Chen also made the following statement:
The Nationalist Government declare that the arrangement made respecting the status of the area hitherto known as the British Concession at Hankow has been concluded by them with special reference to the facts of the new status quo in the new area and is not intended by them to serve as a precedent for the settlement of the future status of any British or other Concession elsewhere in China.
I have instructed Mr. O'Malley—and I believe he has carried out my instructions—to make it clear to Mr. Chen in the course of these negotiations that His Majesty's Government must preserve their full right to dispose their troops as may be necessary for the protection of British lives in Shanghai.

Mr. CLYNES: I should like to express our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for having, at such short notice, given such full information to the House, and to offer to the message a special word of welcome, particularly with regard to the allusion to settling outstanding points of difference by means of negotiation and agreement.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the women and children who are now in Shanghai can return to their homes at Hankow in safety, and can he say on whose protection they may rely in future for their safety?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Questions of that kind, as to when it is safe for British nationals, and particularly for British women, to return to the Concession must be left, I think, for the decision of those on the spot. But I should frankly deprecate undue haste in going back to conditions which may still be unsettled until time has been given for this arrangement to prove itself, and security is fairly established.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to offer warm congratulations to him and to the Government upon the signature of this Agreement. I should like to ask him whether there are negotiations pending with the Peking Government, or with whoever is in authority in Shanghai, with respect to the Concessions there.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Negotiations are pending with the Peking Government. Sir Miles Lampson has made the same declaration to them as was made to Mr. Chen and at the same time, and we are ready and must reserve our right to negotiate with the de facto authorities in any part of China. As regards Shanghai, we cannot deal with that as we can deal with those rights which belong to us, and us alone. Shanghai is an international settlement, and its future can only be settled in agreement with the various nations which have an equal interest with us there.

Mr. LOOKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position in regard to the Kiukiang Concession?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought I bad a telegram here dealing with the Kiukiang Concession. In regard to the Kiukiang Concession, the settlement is to follow the lines of the settlement. in regard to Hankow. When I got to the Table, I found that I had not the telegram in my hands which indicated that.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Would it be appropriate for the Foreign Secretary to wire
to Mr. O'Malley the congratulations of Parliament?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already expressed both to Mr. O'Malley and to Sir Miles Lampson appreciation of the ability with which they have conducted very difficult negotiations, and I have renewed to them both the assurance of my confidence and the confidence of His Majesty's Government in them.

Mr. THURTLE: Arising out of the right hen. Gentleman's reply, will His Majesty's Government consider the advisability, in view of the critical situation in Shanghai, of suggesting to the other foreign Governments that they should appoint persons with plenary powers to consider with the British representative there as to what steps should be taken in the case of certain emergencies arising?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the least said about eventualities, which I hope may not arise, the better.

INDIAN TROOPS.

Mr. DALTON: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the cost of sending Indian troops to China will be a charge on Indian revenue; and, if so, whether it is proposed to permit a subsequent discussion of this expenditure by the Indian Legislature?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member will see from Section 22 of the Government of India Act that the consent of both Houses of Parliament would be required to impose any charge of this nature on Indian Revenues.

BRITISH SUBJECTS (TAXATION).

Mr. LOOKER: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the precise nature of the taxation to which British subjects will be liable under the proposals he has made to the Chinese authorities; whether such taxation will be confined to municipal taxation only or will extend to other taxation; and, if so, to what extent?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the proposals which His Majesty's Government have recently made to the Chinese authorities, British subjects in China would be liable to pay such regular and legal Chinese taxation, not involving discrimination against British subjects or
British goods, as is in fact imposed on and paid by Chinese citizens throughout China. It would obviously be undesirable, in view of the fact that these proposals are intended to form the subject of negotiations with the Chinese authorities, to discuss the details of their eventual application by way of question and answer in this House.

BRITISH MEMORANDUM (PUBLICATION IN CHINESE).

Mr. LOOKER: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the desirability of issuing in China a statement in the Chinese language setting out the modifications of our existing position, to which he has informed the Chinese authorities he is prepared to agree, and of causing such statement to be communicated to the Chinese chambers of commerce and other representative Chinese bodies

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A Chinese translation of the memorandum on British policy of the 18th December, 1926, was distributed to the whole of the Chinese Press in Peking, to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, to Cabinet Offices, Government Departments and student bodies, and steps were taken to secure for it the widest possible circulation throughout China. A Chinese translation of the Treaty revision proposals of the 27th and 28th January was similarly distributed on the widest possible scale.

Mr. LOOKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of also translating and publishing the Resolution of the Cabinet on the policy we intend to pursue in China, as recently read in the House by the Prime Minister?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think probably I had better leave the decision in these matters to the British authorities on the spot. But the answer which I have given to my hon. Friend shows that they are alive to the necessity of making the policy of His Majesty's Government as widely known as possible.

HANKOW AND KIUKIANG (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. LOOKER: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House particulars of the composition of the proposed new body which is to administer the British con-
cessions at Hankow and Kiukiang; and what proportion of such body will consist of British subjects?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As I explained in my speech in this House on the 10th February, the proposed new body for the administration of the British concession at Hankow would be a Sino-British municipality, modelled on that already existing in the former German concession. It would consist of Chinese and British members, the Chinese having a casting vote. The new municipal administration for the British concession at Kiukiang would be similar in character.

Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether in the Agreement which has been negotiated the rights of private property in Hankow, and the position in future of the old staffs of municipal concessions, are fully protected?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: May I ask whether the arrangements now proposed under these negotiations at Hankow could be applied, and would be recommended by the Foreign Secretary, in the case of the Shanghai negotiations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Shanghai is an international concession where many other nations are concerned. The Hankow concession with which we were dealing was a purely British concession.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information as to how these proposals are being received by the local British people in Hankow—whether they approve of them or not?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to know how they are being received by the Chinese?

Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether, as soon as any agreement has been signed in Hankow, it will be published at as early a date as possible?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is another Question on that point.

CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Francis Aglen has been reinstated as Controller of the Chinese Maritime Cus-
toms; whether it is intended that the surtaxes imposed by the Peking Government should be collected by the Customs; and whether any interference with the Customs administration is being attempted or threatened by the Canton Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir Francis Aglen has handed over charge of the Maritime Customs to Mr. Edwardes, the chief secretary, but for a period of one year he will receive the treatment proper to the Inspector-General of Customs. I have no definite information yet as to what arrangements the Peking Government will make for the collection of surtaxes. I understand that the Southern Government dispute the right of the Peking Government to exercise the authority belonging to a Central Government, but I have no knowledge of any interference with the Customs administration having been attempted.

TRADING RIGHTS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to seek to obtain for British traders in China rights outside the treaty ports equal to those enjoyed by Chinese traders in all parts of the United Kingdom?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Our aim is to negotiate treaties with China on a basis which will lead ultimately to complete equality and reciprocity.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary why this Chinese trouble was not referred to the League of Nations?

CANTONESE FORCES (AIRCRAFT).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which European nations so interpret the agreement with ourselves relating to export of armaments as to permit them or their nationals to export aeroplanes to the Cantonese forces?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I know, no countries that are parties to the China Arms Embargo Agreement of May, 1919, are supplying aircraft to the Cantonese forces.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not
a full answer to my question, which was whether on the 15th February he told me representations had been made to one of the Powers, but that differences of opinion had arisen between them as to the interpretation of the agreement, and I asked with which Powers those differences of opinion arose?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand this question to refer to Powers permitting their nationals to export aeroplanes to the Cantonese forces. I have given a full answer to that question, and it is in complete harmony with my answer to the other question put by the hon. Member in different terms.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman with which foreign Powers differences have arisen as to the export of arms under the China agreement?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes to put that question on the Paper, I will answer it. I understand that his question relates to the Cantonese forces, and as far as I know, no Power which has signed the Convention is supplying aeroplanes to the Cantonese forces. They are supplied by a Power which has not signed the Convention.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to give notice that I shall repeat this question on Wednesday next.

WANHSIEN INCIDENT.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when the papers promised last Session in relation to the Wanhsien incident will be presented to Parliament?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of subsequent events and the present situation, I have cone to the conclusion that it is not desirable to lay Papers at present.

POSITION AT SHANGHAI.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement as regards the position in and about Shanghai; and is he satisfied that the lives and property of British nationals are sufficiently protected in any circumstances that may arise?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first" part of my hon. Friend's ques-
tion, the latest reports show that Marshal Sun's troops are evacuating Hangchow, but there is up to the present no confirmation of the report that the Nationalist forces have occupied that city. It is believed that Marshal Sun intends to occupy a new defensive position based at Kashing, about 55 miles from Shanghai. In Shanghai a general strike involving the Post Office, essential services and all cotton mills, began on the 19th February. The movement is reported to be spreading, but up to the present there has been little disorder. As regards the second part of the question, on the assumption that the phrase "any circumstances that may arise" means circumstances which are considered to be within the bounds Of possibility, the answer is in the affrmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (INDIAN IMMIGRANTS).

Mr. LANSBURY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has yet been taken upon the question of appointing an agent for British Guiana to watch over the interests of English workers emigrating to that country?

Earl WINTERTON: I presume that the hon. Member means "Indian" workers. Provision far the appointment of an agent under the Indian Emigration Act in British Guiana is made in the scheme for Indian colonisation which has been approved by the Government of India, but the scheme is not to take effect till a date to be notified with the concurrence of the Governor of the Colony.

Mr. TINNE: Is A not a fact that there is already an Immigration Agent-General in the Colony who looks after the interests of these immigrants?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (AMANI INSTITUTE).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether all the staff have now been appointed for the Amani institute; and when it will be possible to receive students?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): It will not be possible to complete the staff till the Director, who is now on his way to East
Africa, has examined the question on the spot. I am not yet in a position to say when the institute will be open to students.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZAMBESI RIVER (BRIDGE).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have been taken to construct a bridge over the Zambesi River?

Mr. AMERY: The construction of this bridge is dependent on the result of several local technical inquiries recommended by the East African Guaranteed Loan Committee. These inquiries are now in progress.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman help me to get a bridge over the Humber River?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

QUARANTINE STATION, HAIFA.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the situation, equipment, and conditions of the quarantine station at Haifa, Palestine; if he is aware that the station is situated near a swamp and stagnant pools notorious as a breeding-ground for malaria-carrying mosquitoes; and what steps he is taking to improve matters?

Mr. AMERY: I have recently asked the High Commissioner for Palestine to furnish me with a report on the quarantine arrangements at Haifa. I am still awaiting its receipt.

OTTOMAN TITHE LAWS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Palestine intend to change the Ottoman tithe laws on to a fixed average basis: if so, when this change will take place; whether they intend ultimately to change on to a land value basis; and, if so, when is it estimated that this change can take place?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the first and second parts of the question, the Government of Palestine is considering the desirability of replacing the present system of assessing tithes on the products of the soil by a system of fixed assess-
ments for a term of years. As regards the remainder of the question, it is possible that on the completion of the work of land settlement a tax on land values will be imposed, but I am unable now to anticipate a decision which cannot properly be taken for some time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the land registration is likely to he complete?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I cannot give the precise date.

COINAGE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why some other king's head appears on the coins of Palestine instead of that of the King of England; when the change of coinage is to be made; what are to be the names of the new coins; whether the smallest coin will be called a millême or a farthing; and will the inscriptions he in English or Arabic?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the first part of the question, the currency at present in use in Palestine is Egyptian currency. This will be replaced by a new Palestine currency as soon as the latter is available, which will probably be by the autumn. The new coins will be the mil, or one thousandth of a Palestine pound, and multiples of the mil. The inscriptions will be in the three official languages of the country, English, Arabic and Hebrew.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what King's head is on the coins now?

Mr. AMERY: Yes—that of King Fuad, of Egypt.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the King of England's head appear on the new coinage?

Mr. AMERY: No. I think the design is without the King's head.

Colonel DAY: Will these coins be made at the mint in London?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, they will.

Mr. AMERY: They will be made London.

WERGO PROPERTY TAX.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to Palestine, what steps are being taken to put the Wergo property tax on to a real instead of an unreal valuation basis; and when is it expected that the change will be made in Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa?

Mr. AMERY: I am in communication with the High Commissioner for Palestine on this subject, and am not at present in a position to answer the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (KUO MIN TANG PARTY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the Straits Settlements and/or the Federated Malay States, the Kuo Min Tang party has been declared an illegal society, and that prosecutions have taken place in Singapore against persons belonging to the Kuo Min Tang; whether these actions were taken with his sanction; and whether he has consulted His Majesty's Foreign Office on the matter?

Mr. AMERY: The policy of the Malayan Governments, in which they are fully supported by His Majesty's Government, is to refuse registration under the relative enactments to all foreign political societies, and the Kuo Min Tang, which comes within this category, is not registered in Malaya. I am aware that in the normal course of administration prosecutions have taken place from time to time against members of unregistered societies for offences against the Societies Law, but I am not in a position to give particulars.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it is rather anomalous that, when we are trying to come to terms with this particular party for our own interests and for the sake of our own people in China, their members in Malaya should be prosecuted by the Government?

Mr. AMERY: No. The legislation in Malaya is quite generally applicable to all foreign societies, and has been in force for some considerable time.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that
the Chinese residents in Malaya are very law-abiding, peaceable people, and that they are a very valuable part of the community? Why prosecute them in this way?

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Are the law-abiding Chinese who are doing well under the British control in Malaya objecting?

Mr. AMERY: I do not think they are.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the Kuo Min Tang perform any useful functions whatsoever?

Oral Answers to Questions — DUKE OF YORK'S TOUR (SEYCHELLES ISLANDS).

Viscount SANDON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the proximity to the return route of His Majesty's Ship "Renown" of the Seychelles Islands, Royal Highness the Duke of York will visit that British Dependency?

Mr. AMERY: I fear that it would be impossible at this date to alter the arrangements made for His Royal Highness's tour.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (SENTENCE ON NATIVE).

Mr. W BAKER: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken with regard to the Report he has received from Nyasaland regarding the sentence which was imposed on Ira MacDonald Lawrence?

Mr. AMERY: I have not yet received a report on this matter. A report was asked for by despatch dated the 13th December, and a reply cannot be ex-peeled until next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (TAKORADI HARBOUR).

Mr. RHYS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any further information regarding Takoradi Harbour, on the Gold Coast?

Mr. AMERY: Good progress continues to be made. At the end of December, 88 per cent. of the total length of the main breakwater and 63 per cent. of the lee
breakwater were complete. The quarry output for December was 78,052 cubic' yards, which is a record.

Mr. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to when the harbour will be finally completed?

Mr. AMERY: I could if the hon. Gentleman would put a question down. I hope well within the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (NATIVE LABOUR).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Inquiry into the question of native labour, conducted by the Native Commission and others in Kenya Colony, has yet been received by him; and whether it is proposed to publish this Report in this country?

Mr. AMERY: I have not yet received the Report, and the question of publication in tins country has, therefore, not arisen.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Viscount SANDON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he proposes to act on the suggestion of the Prime Minister of Australia as to the appointment of a Committee to visit that country with reference to the bearing of the economic development of Australia, on immigration?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 10th February to the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Haden Guest). I cannot at present acid anything to that reply.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the reduction in special fares for emigrants to Canada from £3 to £2 is shared equally by the British and Canadian Governments; what is the actual fare paid per emigrant to the shipping company; and does such fare include railway charges to the port of embarkation and from the port of debarkation to their destination in Canada?

Mr. AMERY: The recent further reduction of £1 in the assisted passage rates to Canada is shared equally by the British Government and the shipping companies.
The actual fare paid to the shipping company for an adult settler is £14 15s., which is £4 less than the normal ocean passage rate. The £2 rate is applicable only to the port of arrival, Halifax, St. John or Quebec, and does not include rail fares either here or in Canada. Special fares are, however, applicable in Canada and inclusive rates from this country to various points further west are as follows: Montreal, £3; Toronto, £3 10s.; Winnipeg, £4 10s.; Regina, £5; Calgary, £5 10s.: Vancouver, £8.

Oral Answers to Questions — CREDIT INSURANCE.

Mr. W. BAKER: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, with reference to his scheme of credit insurance, he will state, approximately, the amount of business which has been done and with what financial results?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Up to the 18th February, the Export Credits Guarantee Department has consented to give guarantees for £908,773, and out of this total guarantees have become effective to the amount of £142,950. Rates have also been quoted to applicants in respect of a large amount of further business upon which negotiations are in progress. The Department has made a net payment under its guarantees of £232, which will be reduced by expected salvage. The progress of the scheme has been hampered by the recent stoppage of trade. There are clear indications from industrial centres that increasing interest is being taken in it, and I expect an expansion in the use of the scheme as it becomes better understood and more widely known.

Mr. BAKER: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this scheme will not be handed over to private interests when it becomes an established success?

Mr. SAMUEL: It comes to an end in 1929.

Mr. BAKER: If this scheme proves, as I imagine it will prove, of very great benefit to British trade, will it not he worthy of consideration whether such a scheme should not he continued after that date?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask that at the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (ADVERTISING).

Colonel DAY: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what expenditure has been incurred in advertising the British Industries Fair?

Mr. SAMUEL: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 4th August last, the Government have appropriated the sum of £25,000 for advertising the British Industries Fair. It is not possible as yet to give exact figures for the actual expenditure, but I anticipate that the amount spent will be very nearly the full amount authorised.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to supplement this amount later on?

Mr. SAMUEL: No. For the present year no more money will be spent in respect of advertising.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask why public money is used to advertise one particular Fair, which only covers a part of British industries?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the question before, the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

UNITED STATES PRICES (STABILISATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the -Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the proposals in America for the stabilisation of agricultural prices, known as the McNary Haugen plan; if he is aware that these proposals include the disposal of the surplus agricultural products of America overseas by Government action at any price they will fetch; and whether he is considering the possible effects on British agriculture and proposes to prepare himself to take suitable action?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am aware of the proposals to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. In regard to the last part of the question, any possible effect they might have on British agriculture will be carefully considered?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the proposals for price stabilisation of agricultural products in this country as proposed by the Labour party?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have considered it, but those proposals are very different from die American proposals. The American proposals are to stabilise prices in the interest of the producer, whereas the proposals put forward on the opposite side of the House are chiefly prompted, according to the information so far given, in the interest of the consumer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principle is exactly the same, except that the United States is an exporting country and we are an importing country? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it again?

Mr. BLUNDELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the Swiss scheme for stabilising prices, which has recently been brought to an end?

Mr. GUINNESS: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I can give him the information.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Would it not be far better in the interest of the British farmer that no action should be taken at all in this matter, and that it would be better for the goods to come here under cost price?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argument.

CO-OPERATIVE ORGANISATIONS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many co-operative organisations for the collection and disposal of agricultural produce were set up during the last two years; the amount of capital involved; and the amount loaned by the Government to these societies?

Mr. GUINNESS: Nine societies for the collection and disposal, of agricultural produce were registered with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in 1925, and showed an aggregate share capital, as declared to date, of £7,450. Ten societies, which from their names and objects appear to be of the same description, were registered during 1926, but as returns are not yet due from societies registered in 1926, no information is avail-
able as to their share capital. Three of the above societies have received loans from my Department totalling £5,750.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Have any steps been taken by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to facilitate the setting-up of co-operative organisations for this purpose, in view of the very small number that have been set up?

Mr. GUINNESS: Our function is to consider applications for loans, and in that matter we have the advice of a committee under the chairmanship of an hon. Member of this House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Have no initial steps been taken by the Minister to encourage farmers to adopt and to act under the co-operative system?

Mr. GUINNESS: We are in many directions doing what we can to help cooperative societies, and giving advice as to their formation.

DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how much money has been spent, or is to be expended, on drainage schemes during the present winter; and what is the amount contributed by the Government?

Mr. GUINNESS: The financial assistance which I am now in a position to give to statutory drainage authorities is not limited to schemes to be carried out during the winter, and it is not practicable to estimate the expenditure actually incurred in that period. But it is estimated that in the present financial year the total expenditure on schemes approved under the programme now in force will be approximately £58,000, and the State contribution £22,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the number of men actually employed on these drainage schemes?

Mr. GUINNESS: No; we have no information. They are not the old type of schemes specially to relieve unemployment in winter. They are schemes for the improvement of drainage, and not only employ labour direct, but involve large orders for plant.

Mr. BUXTON: In addition to those to which the right hon. Gentleman has
alluded, have there been any schemes this last winter aided by unemployment grants as in former winters?

Mr. GUINNESS: Those were brought to an end last winter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department never considered the advisability of opening out a grand scheme for putting the unemployed on to land that was formerly cultivated but is going derelict? No matter to what part of the country we go, we see Britain going derelict, and I want to know whether the Department has ever considered the advisability of opening up that land.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman in contemplation any Measure this Session following upon his previous announcement of drainage policy?

Mr. GUINNESS: We are going to deal with the drainage of the Ouse area, and I hope to make an announcement shortly about the wider Measure mentioned by my hon. Friend.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many small holdings were set up during the year 1926 by county councils and the Government; the acreage of land acquired; and the cost of same?

Mr. GUINNESS: In 1926, 13 equipped holdings and two cottage holdings were provided by the Ministry on an area of 547 acres, while 13 areas of bare land comprising 120 acres were let to existing smallholders as additions to their previous acreage. The number of holdings provided by county councils during the year is not known, but the acreage of land acquired by them was 442 acres, of which 421 acres were purchased for £15,960 and 21 acres were leased for a rent of £29 a year. The last item does not include any lands which Councils may have taken on lease during the period from 1st April to 31st. December, 1926, when the consent of the Ministry was not required, but I have no particulars of any such cases.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the progress
made with the purchase of land for small holdings has been satisfactory?

Mr. GUINNESS: No; it was fully realised that until the Act of last Session was passed the provision of small holdings was necessarily at a standstill, because it involved a loss, and there were no means of getting State assistance.

Mr. HURD: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he has taken to acquaint county and district councils of their powers under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act; and whether he will make any circular of the subject available to Members of this House?

Mr. GUINNESS: A circular letter and explanatory memorandum were issued to county councils on the 31st January. For reasons of economy the documents have not been printed, but I am sending copies to my hon. Friend and I shall be glad to supply copies to any hon. Member who may wish to have them.

Mr. HURD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that means that none have gone to the district councils? They take an important part in the Measure.

Mr. GUINNESS: District councils only play a small part—by delegation from the county councils. The first steps have to be taken by the county councils, and I think the important point is that they should get to work.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the Allotments Act is worked by urban district councils?

Mr. GUINNESS: But we are not talking of the Allotments Act in this question; we are talking of small holdings.

LONG TERM CREDITS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that disappointment is felt by farmers at the delay in publishing the proposals of the Government regarding long term credit referred to in the White Paper on agricultural policy issued last year; and whether he can say when the scheme will be made known?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 14th February to a similar question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), to which I have nothing to add.

SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES.

Mr. HURD: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his Department has obtained information as to the means taken in Czechoslovakia and other sugar-beet growing countries to remedy the effluent difficulty which is now impeding the provision of new sugar-beet factories in this country; and whether he will make information on the subject available for Members of this House and the public?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, Sir. Reports have been obtained from all the principal beet growing countries. It does not appear from these reports that they have succeeded in overcoming the difficulties which confront sugar manufacturers in this country and elsewhere in the disposal of effluents. I trust, however, that the information contained in these reports may facilitate scientific investigations which are being conducted by the manufacturers and the Government in co-operation. With reference to the second part of the question, a summary of the information acquired from abroad was furnished to each factory some months ago, and similar action will shortly be taken with regard to information more recently acquired, which has already been placed at the disposal of the experts engaged in the investigation of the problem. I shall take an early opportunity of making available to the public any useful information which may result from these investigations.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the enormously increased imports of refined sugar from Czechoslovakia,, and will he call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIAN LOAN.

Mr. ROY WILSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of the recently issued Nigerian loan; and the total amount applied for by the public?

Mr. AMERY: The amount of the loan was £4,250,000 at par bearing five per cent. interest. The subscription lists were opened on the 24th January and
closed at 10.5 a.m. on the same day, by which hour the public applications amounted to £17,375,900.

Mr. WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the result of that loan is a signal tribute to the financial stability of the colony?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the success of this and other loans, and the failure of all the Australian loans? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "Socialism!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENT STREET (CROWN LEASES).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the annual rental of the Crown leases in Regent Street prior to the recent rebuilding following on the extinction of the old leases; what is the rental under the new leases; and what is the estimated cost of the new buildings which have been erected or are in course of erection?

Mr. GUINNESS: The original leases reserved rents amounting in the aggregate to £26,383 9s. 7d. It is estimated that on completion of the rebuilding the rents will amount to £450,000 per annum. The new lettings on rebuildings in some cases include small additional areas adjoining but not actually situated in Regent Street. As regards the last part of the question, I regret that the information is not available. The Commissioners of Crown Lands, when granting new building leases in Regent Street, specify a minimum sum to be expended on the erection of suitable buildings, but it is believed that in most cases the minimum has been largely exceeded.

Sir R. HALL: May I ask whether it is anticipated that these increased rents will encourage trade?

Mr. GUINNESS: They are apparently related to the value of the land, and, of course, there is not a sudden rise in rents, because the leases began to fall-in in 1914, and there has been a gradual increase in revenue as more of the property has been let from year to year.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the enormous
increment in land values belonging to the State proves the necessity of taxation of land values in the ease of other lands?

Mr. RHYS: May I ask whether the proposed leasehold reform will apply to Crown lands?

Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (IMPORT LICENCES).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British traders are experiencing difficulty in obtaining licences to import goods into Poland, whereas licences can be easily obtained for the same goods by representatives of other foreign countries; and if he will make inquiries with a view to representations to the Polish Government antler the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause of our Trade Agreement with Poland?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the difficulties, but the statistics of Polish trade do not suggest that there is any deliberate discrimination against this country. Proposals are now under discussion with the Polish Government which it is hoped may simplify the procedure and improve the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON CONVENTION (HOURS OF WORK).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what European members of the League of Nations have ratified the Eight Hours Convention; and what other nations have undertaken to ratify it if Great Britain will do so?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The Washington Hours Convention has been ratified unconditionally by Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Greece and Rumania. Austria, Italy and Latvia have deposited with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations ratifications which will only become operative on ratification by certain other States, of which Great Britain is one.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SLAVERY CONVENTION).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many State members of the League of Nations have signed the Slavery Convention of 1926?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the latest information in my possession, 30 States members of the League have so far signed tills Convention.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEDAL BICYCLES (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Brigadier - General CHARTERIS: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of pedal bicycles manufactured in Great Britain annually; the number of such bicycles exported, and the number imported from foreign countries?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The answer is a long one, and my hon. and gallant Friend will perhaps agree to its circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Will the hon. Gentleman give some general figures at the present time for the information of the House?

Mr. SAMUEL: As a general Statement, I think I may say that this trade is in an extremely healthy condition. The exports have been going up consistently, and in 1926 they rose to 280,000 pedal machines, and we imported only 1,000. We are now exporting parts to a larger value than the total value of the exports of completed machines.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Member say what countries the imported machines came from?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which cannot be answered without notice

Following is the answer promised:

Particulars of the number of pedal bicycles made in this country year by year are not furnished to the Board of Trade. The Census of Production in respect of the year 190; showed that in that year the number of bicycles made in Great Britain and Ireland was 623,800. Only a small number of these were made in Ireland. The number made in Great Britain in 1924, as shown by the provi-
sional summaries of Census of Production results for that year, was nearly 700,000.

The number of complete bicycles exported from Great Britain and Ireland in 1907 was 102,400, and the number exported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1924 was 200,781. In 1926 the number was 280,051. The numbers imported in the same years were 600, 1,097 and 1,155 respectively, after deducting re-exports.

In addition to the complete bicycles, the numbers of which I have given, there are produced, exported and imported considerable quantities of parts of bicycles, both replacement parts and parts for assembly into complete machines. I am unable to say what additional numbers of machines should be taken as the equivalent of such parts. In 1926 the value of exports of parts of bicycles other than tyres exceeded that of imports of such parts by an amount greater than the value of the complete bicycles exported.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (CANCELLING STAMPS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is prepared to authorise the issue of cancelling stamps for foreign correspondence with the words Visit Britain, as recommended by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Come to Britain movement?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The Post-mister-General has carefully considered this suggestion, but regrets that he has been unable to sanction it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRICES.

Mr. W. THORNE: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the coal merchants of West Harrow are selling coal at 3s. 4d. per cwt. whilst the coal at Northolt, a few miles distant, can be bought at 3s. per cwt.; and whether he can state the reasons for the difference in price for the same quality coal?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have made inquiries of the Coal Merchants' Federation, who state that coal is being sold at 3s. 2d. in Northolt; but they state, further, that
this coal is of an inferior quality to that which is being retailed at 3s. 4d in West Harrow.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us who fixes the minimum selling prices of coal, or is it left to the merchants to fix what price they like for the coal; and is he aware that the merchants to-day are getting 2s. 6d. a ton more for distribution than they were this time last year?

Mr. SAMUEL: I can do no more than communicate the answer which was drafted after very careful inquiry had been made with the Coal Merchants' Association. If there be a grievance it is not against the Secretary for Mines, and it must be argued out with the Coal Merchants' Association.

Mr. THORNE: Is he aware that there is grave dissatisfaction among consumers all over London with regard to the question of consumption, price, and the unloading of wagons, and is he now prepared to have a Committee of Inquiry set up to find out who is right and who is wrong?

Mr. SAMUEL: There have been in the past at least two Committees considering this question—the Duncan Committee and the Shinwell Committee. I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the Reports of those Committees, and then he will see that the whole position is one of very great complexity.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the retailers in London have definitely declared their intention of securing all the profits which they lost last year, and will he not, under those circumstances, urge upon the Government the necessity of controlling prices so that they cannot do what no other section of the community are able to do?

Mr. GROVES: 51.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that it is the intention of the London coal merchants not to reduce the price of household coal whilst the public is willing to buy at the present price; that for February, 1926, the margin between the cost of production and the selling price was 12s. 2d. per ton; for February this year it amounts to 14s. 8d., showing an additional profit of 2s. 6d. per ton and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have seen in the Press the figures quoted by the hon. Member. It is alleged by the coal merchants that costs at the present time are in fact higher than this time last year. These are the kind of statements and counter-statements which, as the inquiries already held on this subject show, are extraordinarily difficult to check. Nor do I think that a further inquiry going over the same ground would serve a useful purpose. So far as any increase in cost is due to reduced sales, the obvious remedy is to increase sales by reducing prices. If there is any sustained attempt by merchants to charge excessive prices and thus restrict sales, there is an obvious incentive to coal owners, whose interest is to secure the maximum of sales, to cut into the distributing trade.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what I have stated in this question has been definitely stated in the Press by the coal distributors themselves? Is he also aware that there is a week's supply of coal on rail, and that, if this coal could be handled and distributed, there would be an inducement for the price of coal to be reduced?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is quite another question. I am aware that there is difficulty in connection with the unloading of coal in London. If it were possible to get better delivery of coal, I think that that would relieve the situation. But that is a very different question.

Mr. LAWSON: In view of the continual references to the previous inquiries on this question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the position is altogether different now from what it was when those inquiries were held; and, in view of the drastic reductions in wages suffered by the miners, which must make coal cheaper, is it not high time that the consumer was protected?

Mr. SAMUEL: The principal factors in the argument are the same now as they were, although conditions have changed since those inquiries were held. If the hon. Member will look into the Reports of the two inquiries—the Duncan and the Shinwell—he will find, as I have, how utterly impossible it is for anyone to unravel the intricacies of the problem.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as one who has read carefully the Reports of those inquiries, whether it is not a fact that the miners have now about half the wages they had before—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—while the cost of coal is infinitely higher than it was before the stoppage, and is not that ground for the holding of an inquiry?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the selling price of coal at the pit-head in 1926, for the same class of coal, was 27s., and it is now 35s., and can he tell us how it is that, in spite of the extra hour worked by the miners, and the reduction in their pay, the price of coal is about 8s. more than it was this time last year?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Why should it be extremely difficult for the Department to make a simple comparison of the pit-head prices a year ago and to-day?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Does not the hon. Gentleman's answer, in effect, mean that the Government have no intention of taking any action against the coal merchants, and are perfectly willing that the coal merchants should take the last penny—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter now.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNION LEGISLATION.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to secure the better observation of the laws governing the activities of trade unions, the Government will, before formulating their own proposals, invite the Labour party to discuss with them the question as to what alteration of the wording of these Acts is necessary?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): This matter was fully discussed in the. Debate on the Address and I have nothing to add to what was then said.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that two European Powers are disinclined to accept President Coolidge's ratio proposals for limiting naval arma-
ments, he will consider placing an alternative formula before the five principal maritime Powers based on the following: abolition of battleships by general agreement between the chief naval nations, make the Washington 10,000-ton cruiser the largest unit of modern navies, each nation being allowed a ratio in accordance with her needs for security, protection of trade, and world responsibilities, allow nations to build as many 5,000-ton cruisers as they desire for purely police duties, limit submarine tonnage to each nation's defensive heads, maximum dimensions and radius of action of each submarine unit to be clearly laid down, and appoint an international conference under the League of Nations with instructions to draw up concise regulations for governing all phases of submarine warfare?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter. In any case I do not think that questions such as those raised by my hon. and gallant Friend can well be treated by way of Question and Answer.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now name the date on which a reply will be sent to the request of the United States in regard to disarmament; and whether the Government will acquiesce in the proposals contained therein?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are at present consulting the Governments of the Dominions. As soon as their opinions have been received, His Majesty's Government hope to be in a position to reply to the United States Note., and a statement will then be made to the House.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when he was committing this country to interference in European affairs, it was not necessary to get the answer of the Dominions at that time, but now it is necessary to get the answer from the Dominions Government when it is a question of disarmament?

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING AND VALUATION ACT, 1925.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 52.
asked the Minister of Health if he
is aware of the objections entertained by rating surveyors and valuers to the creation of county valuers as recommended by the Central Valuation Committee under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to report on properties to be included in the new valuation lists; and whether, seeing that it would be beneficial alike to the State, the local authorities, and the public to adopt instead completely independent valuers, he will reconsider the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir; certain representations have been made to my right hon. Friend on this matter. He finds nothing in the recommendations of the Central Valuation Committee, which is a body representing all classes of local authority, to discourage the employment of independent valuers in connection with the assessment of certain classes of property. The recommendations, which are intended to secure co-operation between valuers so employed by rating authorities and any valuer employed or retained by a County Valuation Committee to advise them, appear to my right hon. Friend to offer a reasonable prospect of effective co-ordinating the work of valuation within each county.

Sir F. HALL: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that the appointment of these county valuers would have the same disastrous effect upon valuations as that which followed under the Finance Act, 1910?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I do not think the two sets of circumstances are comparable. This is a unanimous recommendation of the Central Valuation Committee. My hon. Friend will find that in their Report there is a recommendation as to the appointment of county valuers in certain cases.

Sir F. HALL: Does my hon. Friend recollect the chaos which followed the appointment of the valuators under the Finance Act, 1910, and does it not appear to him that, if such appointments were to be made now, and the valuations were to be taken by county valuers, it would lead to a repetition of the same state of things?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. GILLETT: 53.
asked the Minister of Health what are the scales of relief paid to the able-bodied unemployed by the boards of guardians in the Metropolitan area?

Sir K. WOOD: The information desired by the hon. Member could only be obtained by calling upon the several boards of guardians to make a special return, and the application of such scales as are in existence is subject to so many qualifications, depending on the practice of the particular board of guardians, that any simple return would be rather misleading than useful.

Mr. GROVES: Is the Department prepared to take action where it discovers that the rate of relief for able-bodied unemployed men is beyond the point of what they call subsistence?

Sir K. WOOD: That is an entirely different matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

INVALIDING DISABILITIES.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 34.
asked the Parliamentary secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that no printed scale is published for the information of naval ratings as to how invaliding disabilities are assessed; and whether he will issue such a scale showing percentage allowed for loss of right arm, leg, eyes and hands, etc.?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am aware of the fact as stated by my hon. Friend, and I will look into the question whether a scale could not be published.

MERITORIOUS SERVICE (SENIORITY).

Sir B. FALLE: 55.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether naval ratings who are given seniority as a reward for meritorious service are advanced to b higher rating when reaching the top of the roster and borne supernumerary to the establishment, or whether they are included in port division numbers?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In the circumstances stated, the rating, after reaching the top of the roster, would be
advanced in the next vacancy. The Admiralty do, however, occasionally order the immediate rating up of a man for specially meritorious service, and the advancement is then absorbed in the next vacancy.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR ROUTE TO INDIA.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement as to when the regular air route to India will open for general traffic?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The first of the through flights from Cairo to Karachi is scheduled for 6th April next.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask what number of planes it is expected to put on this service; and, at the same time, may I venture to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having so successfully "blazed the trail"?

Sir S. HOARE: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I can assure him that they are not due to myself so much as to the pilots and navigators who took me so safely. In answer to his supplementary question, the machines will be of the same type as that on which I made my recent flight to India.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to link up the European Air Service with this route from Cairo to India?

Sir S. HOARE: I am most anxious to see the section between Europe and the East fully completed. I cannot say when we shall be able to do it, but we are constantly considering the question. I regard it as most important that we should make that section as soon as possible.

Sir F. WISE: Can my right hon. Friend sax what the cost of the flight has been?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, I could not say off-hand; but I can assure my hon. Friend that it will not amount to any considerable sum, and he will be surprised at the smallness of the figure.

Sir F. HALL: And cheap at the price!

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DEAF CHILDREN.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education the present estimated number of deaf and partially deaf children who might benefit by admission to special schools; how many of these children are at present in special schools; how many in public elementary schools; and how many are not attending any school?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the reply to this question consists largely of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:



Deaf.
Partially Deaf.


Total number of deaf and partially deaf children ascertained by local education authorities in 1925
4,154
2,170


Number attending special schools
3,551
445


Number attending public elementary schools
319*
1,632


Number not attending any school
247*
80


* The fact that these children are not attending special schools is due, in the main, either to the unwillingness of the parents to have their children sent to residential schools, or to the children being under the age at which the obligation of deaf children to attend school begins.

—
Blind.
Deaf.
Mentally Defective.
Physically Defective.
Epileptic.
Total.


Number of Certified Special Schools on 31st March, 1926.
75
49
192
233
6
555


Number of Children on the Registers on 31st March, 1925.
3,782
4,175
15,951
17,422
509
41,839


Estimated number of children on the Registers on 31st March, 1926.
3,919
4,230
16,331
18,804
520
43,804

Complete returns for she year ended 31st March, 1926, are not yet available, and the estimate given above is approximate only.

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Mr. COVE: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education the names of the

Mr. R. MORRISON: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have made provision for the education of deaf and partially deaf children under their jurisdiction; how many have made partial provision; and how many have not, yet made any provision?

Lord E. PERCY: It is not possible to give exact figures. The provision made in certified special schools for totally deaf children, between the ages of 7 and 16, is, generally speaking, complete. In the case of partially deaf children the provision is not generally complete. Two authorities have provided special schools for their partially deaf children, and some 20 or 30 authorities either admit all their partially deaf children to their own schools for the deaf or send them to other deaf schools or institutions. In a number of the smaller areas no such children have been ascertained.

SPECIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. COVE: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of certified special schools for the blind, deaf, mentally defective, physically defective, and epileptic children, and the number of pupils on their registers, respectively, on 31st March, 1926?

Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

members of the special committee he has-set up to explore the provision for mentally defective children; whether it
invites evidence upon the subject; and if is is proposed to publish a Report of its recommendations?

Lord E. PERCY: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of tile Committee which is inquiring into certain questions relating to mental deficiency among adults as well as among children. I understand that evidence has not yet been invited. I cannot say at this stage whether the Committee's Report will be published.

Following is the list:

Mr. Arthur H. Wood, C.B. (Chairman).
Dr. R. H. Crowley (Vice-Chairman).
Mr. C. Eaton
Mrs. Pinsent, C.B.E.
Miss Evelyn Fox.
Miss Redfern.
Professor Cyril Burt.
Dr. F. C. Shrubsall.
Dr. A. F. Tredgold.
Dr. F. Douglas Turner.
Mr. N. D. Bosworth-Smith (Secretary).

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAFFIC ISLANDS.

Colonel DAY: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the heated traffic islands that have been provided for the Berlin police; and will he consider their introduction into the Metropolitan police area?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): My right hon. Friend has no details of the heated islands referred to, but he does not consider their adoption either necessary or practicable in London.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries as to the beneficial use of them on the Continent?

Captain HACKING: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL LOAN STOCK.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of local loan stock redeemed in 1924, 1925 and 1926, respectively, and the conditions of redemption?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): No
stock has been redeemed. The stock consists of perpetual annuities, and the holder cannot claim redemption in any circumstances. The holder can be compelled to accept redemption at par at one month's notice by Resolution of this House, but manifestly Parliament would not exercise that power unless the stock stood above par.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN FILMS (TAXATION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the practical immunity from British taxation enjoyed by the American film industry in respect of their large profits made in this country, which are estimated at many millions sterling; and whether he will take steps, following the example of the United States of America, to tax profits made by foreigners whose films are being exhibited in this country, such taxation not to be less than the standard rate of income tax levied on British citizens?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Howard Bury) on the 15th December last.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the matter being further pursued by the Treasury, in view of its importance and of the need for securing additional money for the Treasury?

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend will find the answer to that question in the reply to which I have referred him.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSEUM (SUNDAY CLOSING).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that it is not the practice to keep the Natural History Museum at South Kensington closed on Sundays when artificial light has to be used because of fog, but that the British Museum has been closed five times in the last six years on Sundays; and why, if the keepers can have the electric switches turned on in the Natural History Museum when necessary, they cannot do the same in the British Museum when a fog occurs?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir, I am aware of this difference of practice between the two museums. The explanation is that, whereas at the Natural History Museum electric light is available on Sundays, when necessary, from the Office of Works station at South Kensington, there is no such supply available at the British Museum; and I am not prepared, in order to meet a very rare emergency, to incur the considerable expense which would be involved by altering the present arrangements at Bloomsbury.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN MANDATES.

Mr. RHYS (for Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON): 17 and 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether the mandate for Tanganyika territory provides for the possible federation or unification of that territory with adjacent British Colonies and Protectorates; and whether the B mandates for British Togoland and British Cameroons contain any identical provisions or whether the latter are regarded internationally as integral parts of the Gold Coast and Nigeria respectively;
(2) whether the Treaty of Versailles provided for the cession of the former German colonies in Africa to the victorious allies or to the League of Nations; who conferred the mandate for Tanganyika territory on His Britannic Majesty; and when and whether the mandate provides for any possible transfer of such territory with or without the consent of the Powers who conferred the mandate?

Mr. AMERY: Under Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles the former German territories in Africa were surrendered to the principal Allied and Associated Powers, who, in accordance with Article 22 of the Treaty agreed that mandates to administer these territories should be conferred upon the Government concerned; and proposed the terms in which the mandates should be formulated. Having arranged the allocation and delimitation of these territories as between themselves, the Governments concerned agreed to accept their respective Mandates and to exercise them on behalf of the League of Nations on the proposed terms, and the Mandates were then confirmed by the Council of the League. The Mandates do not contain
any provision for transfer to another Power. Article 10 of the Tanganyika Mandate authorises the Mandatory to constitute the territory into a Customs, fiscal and administrative union or federation with adjacent territories under his own control, provided that the provisions of the Mandate are not infringed. No similar provision exists in the British mandates for Togoland and the Cameroons, which lay down that these areas shall be administered as integral parts of the Mandatory Power's neighbouring territories subject, of course, to the provisions of the Mandate. They are accordingly administered as integral parts of the Gold Coast and Nigeria respectively. The terms of the Mandates for Tanganyika territory, Cameroons and Togoland were confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 20th July, 1922, and were presented to Parliament in January, 1923, as Command Paper No. 1794.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIETIE GENERALE HELLENIQUE.

Sir F. WISE: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the paid-up capital of the Societé Générale Hellenique that received a British Government guarantee of £2,000,000?

Mr. McNEILL: The authorised and issued share capital is £750,000, and is called up as construction proceeds. The amount paid up on calls to date is £309,397 15s.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND POWER AND PAPER COMPANY.

Sir F. WISE: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company are paying the interest on the debentures guaranteed by the British Government?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BLANESBURGH REPORT).

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now arrange for the Blanesburgh Report on Unemployment Insurance to he procurable by Members at the Vote Office?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir, I have so arranged, and hon. Members can now obtain the Report at the Vote Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.

Colonel DAY: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the inconvenience suffered by long-distance motor travellers owing to the material differences that exist in the traffic regulations in different parts of the country; and whether his Department mill consider taking such action as will result in the regularisation of traffic laws on a line with those operating in the Metropolis?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I fully appreciate the desirability of uniformity in traffic laws and regulations throughout the country, as far as is practicable. The matter has been engaging my attention in connection with the Bill for the regulation of road traffic.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the signals one gets from policemen in different parts of the country are all different, and will he take that into consideration?

Colonel ASHLEY: The police are human, like other people, and probably mean the same thing, but do it in a different way.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that what is in the motorist's mind is not exactly what is in the policeman's mind, and will he have some system of regularity so that the motorists can know exactly?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (AUTOMATIC SIGNALLING).

Mr. W. THORNE: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that over two years ago the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company promised to instal automatic signalling between the Bow Road and Barking Town stations, with a view of speeding up the train service; if he can state whether any of the work has been commenced; and, if not, will he take any action in the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed by the railway company that, owing to the difficulty they experienced for a considerable period last year in obtaining material, the carrying out of these alterations has been seriously delayed. The work is, however, being pressed forward, and the company hope to be able to bring the new signalling arrangements into use by the end of June this year.

Mr. RHYS: How will that affect the train service, and what improvement will it bring about?

Colonel ASHLEY: The improvement will be very much.

COAL WHARVES AND SIDINGS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the congestion of coal wharves and sidings at the London stations; and whether he intends to utilise any of his powers to take steps to secure the provision of better facilities?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that there has been delay to coal traffic consigned to certain London depots, and I am in communication with the railway company principally affected. I have no compulsory power to require the provision of facilities.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the correspondence in which he informed me that he had taken over certain powers of the Board of Trade which would give him the necessary authority to act compulsorily?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no compulsory powers. I can, if I certify that there are not reasonable facilities, put it to the Attorney-General for his consideration, and if he considers that a case is made out, he can order a prosecution, but I have no power.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the great delay and loss inflicted on the commercial community and the suffering of the poor people in the East End of London who cannot get coal—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should not make speeches now.

JURA ROAD SCHEME

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is
aware that the township of Ardfernal has been omitted from the Knocreme and Ardmenish road scheme in Jura; whether he is aware that the township of Ardfernal is in common grazing with the township of Knocrume and that the suggested branch road would only mean an additional 600 yards to the proposed scheme; and whether he will consider favourably the inclusion of this township in the road scheme?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that the new road passes at a slight distance from Ardfernal. The question of extending the project is primarily one for the Islay District Committee who promoted the original scheme and to whom I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not only convey the suggestion hut make the suggestion on his own behalf?

Colonel ASHLEY: All these schemes must originate with the local authority. When they come up I consider them, but they must originate with the local authority.

Mr. MACLEAN: Have you considered the scheme?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think it has come up to me, but I should like notice.

Mr. MACLEAN: When it comes up, will you consider this particular point?

BILLS PRESENTED.

STABILISATION OF EASTER BILL,

"to regulate the date of Easter Day and days or other periods and occasions depending thereon," presented by Mr. WITHERS; supported by Sir John Simon, Mr. Trevelyan, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Dalton, and Mr. Ellis; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

POLICE (WIDOWS' PENSIONS AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to amend section three (a) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, so as to include in its benefit the widows of police pensioners who finally retired from the police force
prior to the first day of September, 1918," presented by Sir JAMES REMNANT; supported by Mr. Hayes, Sir Basil Peto, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. William Thorne, Sir John Pennefather, and Sir Robert Newman; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT'S (ESTIMATES, 1927).

Estimate presented—for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1928, with Memorandum [by Command].

Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 21.]

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1927 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Estimate presented—showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1928 [by Command].

Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 22.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1927.

Estimates presented—of Effective and Non-Effective Services of the Army for the year 1927 [by Command].

Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 23.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £420,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act; 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services.

4.0 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut. Colonel Stanley): It may be of convenience to the Committee if I explain some of the reasons for asking for this Supplementary Estimate to meet expenditure in excess of the money which we voted at the commencement of the financial year. As I have explained before, there is a possible, though small, margin of error to be allowed for in estimating the expenditure for the year in such a complicated matter as that which the Ministry of Pensions has to administer. At the same time, I have claimed in the past that that possible margin of error was being reduced and we were steadily approaching a period when a more exact estimate would be possible. I am glad to say that events have borne out my anticipation. Two years ago we presented Supplementary Estimates which involved an error of 3 per cent. in the original Estimate; last year it was 2 per cent., and this year it is rather less than 1 per cent. This margin of error is inherent in the nature of the material with which the Ministry have to deal. There are at all times certain factors at work, some of which tend towards a reduction and some of which tend in the opposite direction.
We know what these factors are, but it is impossible to say how they will operate during the course of the next 12 months, Take, for example, the factor of death. That, of course, is operating all the time in the direction of a reduction of the pension list, and it is operating unevenly. In the course of the 12 months we have that factor operating among the officers and men, among the widows, and among the dependent parents. You can only estimate roughly by what has happened in previous years, but any such estimate may be hopelessly thrown out by circumstances, such as climatic conditions, or epidemics, which cannot possibly be foreseen and which may tend either to increase or decrease the number of deaths in the course of the year, Similarly, the factors of the remarriage of widows and the numbers of children who come off the Pensions List, or those who are given extensions of allowances beyond the age of 16, are all subject to small variations one way or the other, and all tend to falsify the calculations. We also have other factors of different kinds at work. There are new claims for pensions or grants of all kinds, which may be made on the Ministry, and it is not very easy to say to what extent the volume of current work will diminish or remain constant. As each year goes by the possible margin of error tends steadily to diminish and the policy of stabilisation which my right hon. and gallant friend has set himself to pursue is working in the direction of greater precision of estimate, but I fear some margin of error is likely to continue, at any rate for a few years.
To turn to the actual Estimates, the Committee will observe that the present Supplementary Estimate is submitted for increased expenditure under one Subhead only, namely, K1, which is Pensions, Gratuities and Allowances to Disabled Seamen and Disabled Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers and Men of all the Fighting Forces, and I think this is an item which the Committee will agree least of all requires any apology. The first cause of this large increase, I am glad to say, is that there have been fewer deaths during this year among pensioners than was deemed probable from the experience of previous years. Apart from particular causes and conditions of any given period
affecting the death-rate, it seems probable that the death-rate among disabled men will decline very slowly in proportion as the more seriously disabled men have been removed, but, whatever the cause, there is a decline, I am glad to note, and it accounts for a very large part of the increase on the Estimate. Another figure which goes to swell the expenditure now under discussion consists of a larger payment of lump sums than was expected. At the termination of weekly allowances, there is also a terminal gratuity to be paid. These grants are made for two or three years, and there is a larger amount falling due than we expected. In these, cases the Ministry have allowed men very freely to compound these gratuities where the local war pensions committee have recommended that it should be done. That accounts for another large item in extra expenditure.
A further factor is that a larger number of allowances were in payment during the year than was anticipated. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, weekly payments are either conditional, that is, liable to periodic review, or final, and it is impossible to tell in advance what the number will be in each class. Our original Estimate has also been affected by a slightly greater increase than we allowed for in the pensions payable in those cases which, owing to more serious injuries or diseases, have been progressively deteriorating, and have therefore been left on the conditional list, the pensions being subject to renewal and adjustment if and when they deteriorate. The cumulative effect of all these factors is that we are asking for a further sum of £600,000 under that heading. That gross sum is reduced to £420,000 by certain reductions in other items. Perhaps I may be allowed to take two sub-heads together, Sub-head A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, £42,400, and Sub-head O1, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, Medical Services, £5,000, making a total of £47,400.
When the original Estimates were presented we saw our way to a considerable reduction in administrative expenditure. We expected to have a reduction from last year of £406,700. By a reduction in the volume of work and the improvements we have been able to make we have
not only realised that sum of 2406,700, but in addition a further sum of £47,400. Then under Sub-head E, there is a further saving of 235,000 on pensions and gratuities to widows and children of deceased officers. The reason for that is that the number of deaths and the number of remarriages was higher than was anticipated, and at the same time the number of new awards was less than was anticipated. That resulted in a saving of £35,000. Then there is a further saving under Sub-head M on Pensions and Gratuities to Dependants. I have had this item very carefully examined to see what was the cause of it, and I am sorry to say that the cause is an increased number of deaths among these dependants. The Committee will realise that 98 per cent. of dependants are the parents of men who have lost their lives in the service of the country during the Great War, and, of necessity therefore, they are the oldest of the beneficiaries of the Ministry. More than two-thirds of them are 60 years of age and upwards. It is therefore to be expected that, as every year goes by, the death-rate in this class will increase, because the number of new claims now being made is necessarily much lower than it was a few years ago. I am sorry to say that the death-rate during the past year in this class has steadily increased, and we anticipate that there will probably be a thousand more deaths than there were in the preceding year.
The last item on which there has been a saving is the £47,000 under Sub-head O8. This saving is due partly to the reduction in the cost of supply and repair of limbs and appliances which my right hon. and gallant Friend was able to secure on the recommendations of the Committee which sat last year under the presidency of the hon. and gallant Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) and on which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen) was a representative. They made certain recommendations which have been adopted by the Ministry and which have resulted in a saving. There is a so a marked diminution in the number of applications which will also result in a large saving. The savings on the original Estimate therefore amount to £179,000, and these I am glad to say have helped to meet the
additional expenditure which the Ministry have incurred in satisfying the claims of disabled men.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I have no desire to oppose this Vote on the ground that an increased sum is required. I suppose most Members are still troubled with a considerable number of applications from their constituents or from other sources, and will readily understand some of the causes which have been adduced by my hon. and gallant Friend as to the reason why the Minister of Pensions is asking for this increased sum. While I can understand that, and feel a sense of gratification that an increased sum is being asked for in order to meet in some measure the requirements of suffering ex-Service men. I can only express my personal wish that even the aggregate sum which has been named as the increase necessary had been asked for, in which case a few more remedial steps could have been taken to meet the cases which come to the Ministry from time to time. I regard this increase as some little indication that the Ministry are inclined to meet the very definitely expressed wish of the public when they said that a full measure of justice was to be done to the ex-service men and their dependants. Probably, too, a little of the influence in this direction, the change which has brought about the necessity for the increase, has been induced by the activities of Members of local committees, and those examinations which have been made by certain of the advisory councils have brought forward expressions of view that have assisted the Minister in looking for the change which has ensued.
Judging from the number of cases which have been submitted from ex-service men to Members of this House, it seems to me that the increase, rather than being of the stipulated sum asked for, might reasonably have been expected to have been just a little bit more. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was due in large measure to the fact that the death rate had not reached that magnitude which had been forecast. Every one will be ready to express a profound sense of gratitude that that is the realisation. Perhaps in some way it does indicate that the steps which have been taken to provide the best form of treat-
ment have been at the disposal of ex-service men, and in some measure will account for the diminution in the death rate to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. But I did not quite follow him in the line he was taking as to the effect on this Vote which the lump sum payments have exercised. I should be glad if the Minister, when he replies, will give us some further explanation.
I wish to make one or two references to the anticipated savings which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned in the latter part of his observations. I have yet to convince myself, at any rate, that all these savings can be fully justified. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to one, in particular, under Sub-head A, which deals with salaries, wages and allowances. There has been a total saving of £42,000. I would ask to what extent this is due to the dismissal of the ex-service men who have been temporarily engaged as civil servants; also how far it is due to the closing of offices in various areas, and whether either of these two circumstances has been a contributor to the saving and a lessening of the facilities which ought to be provided for meeting the requirements of pensioners. It seems to me that a too rapid change of method in an area certainly will affect the demands that pensioners are likely to make to have their cases as readily and as promptly considered as they have a right to expect.

The CHAIRMAN: I have scanned this Estimate, with some care, because I was sure that difficulties would arise. I find that, on the ruling of the present Speaker and of Mr. Speaker Lowther, it is not possible to discuss policy, as reflected in savings, on a Supplementary Estimate. On a Supplementary Estimate discussion must be confined to the matter for which money is actually taken. A full explanation of the way in which the savings have been arrived at is in order, but not the discussion of policy upon it.

Mr. ROBERTS: I thank you for that intervention, and it will keep me on the right lines. I thought, however, that as the Parliamentary Secretary had developed his argument as to how savings had been made, we had a right to question him in return as to whether there was behind the savings any reason
upon which the House had a right to expect an explanation. I will do my best to keep within the ruling which you have been good enough to give. The next item relates to pensions and grants to widows and children of deceased officers. Here we find that there has been the comparatively large saving of £35,000. As I understand the position, there was no reduction in the Estimate for the current year as compared with 1925 and 1926. The figure for both of those years was £1,935,000. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there has been any decrease in the number of children of officers who have passed off the pension list, or what has been the material event in bringing about this reduction?
Now we come to the more important point of parents' pensions. I was glad to hear the full explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary gave. He said that the figures here are very largely, and, unfortunately, due to the deaths of the aged parents of those who had lost their lives. But I find that the original Estimate showed a reduction of £120,000. We now find that there is a further saving of something like £50,000. It is difficult to follow that this has been contributed to so largely by the unfortunate circumstance to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred as to bring about the big decrease of £120,000 and then of £50,000. I will be very glad if the Minister would give us a few more details. If I might quote one illustration, I would mention a case brought to my notice. When an aged parent becomes entitled to a pension of another kind, some reduction is made in the pension to which she has been already entitled under this scheme. I am wondering if this parent, who suffered reduction, had the allowance made up to the full limit which is now included in the Regulations, and whether, if that were so, the decrease which is shown under this heading might not have been quite so large as we find it. That seems to me likely to have an effect on the scheme as it is now being worked. I believe that everyone will say that no sort of economy ought to be attempted at the secrifice of the comfort and well-being of aged parents of ex-service men who lost their lives. That is the last way in which any-
thing of the kind should be practised, and I am hoping for a little more satisfactory explanation.
The next item deals with medical services. Under this heading we find that there is a saving of £3,000. The original Estimate shows a decrease of £54,000. I wish to know whether this means that treatment from the Ministry doctors has diminished and that more cases are now sent for treatment to the patients' panel doctors. We know quite well that we get complaints from a good number of men who are driven to their panel doctors for treatment when, as they allege, owing to war disability, they should really receive it from Ministry doctors. If this were so, and if these men suffering from this kind of disability were to receive that treatment to which they feel they are entitled under the Regulations, probably we should not find, under the medical services heading, a further reduction of £5,000, added to the £54,000 which was made at the beginning of the year.
The last item is that to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, namely, the supply of artificial appliances. We find that under this heading there has been a further saving of £47,000. The decrease on the Estimate originally was £33,000. I do not know whether I can quite accept the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is true that he has greater opportunities for surveying the actual needs which apply to these figures. Could he tell us to what extent the life of artificial limbs has been extended? Is that one other aspect which affects the reduction? Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent applications are coming forward for the newer types of limbs, which I understand the Ministry is always ready to supply when the application is made, and to what extent, if these applications are coming, that demand is being met? My hon. and gallant Friend said that the saving was mainly due to the fact that improved contracts had been accepted and were now running. I know that the Ministry is to be congratulated on the very excellent arrangement with regard to the supply of artificial limbs. Anyone who knows the circumstances will readily accord the tribute which is due to anyone who has been concerned in this movement, but when we have a saving approaching £80,000, I wonder whether
these figures are justified and whether the reduction is mainly due to the acceptance of better contracts. I think we are right in declaring that there should not be a reduction if one man is likely to suffer in consequence of what is being done. Those are questions which I put to the Minister, and I shall be, glad if in his reply he will give us further elucidation on the points raised.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I listened with very great attention to the explanation that has been volunteered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and he appeared to me to make out a very good case for this Estimate. When an additional Estimate is asked for in this House for the Ministry of Pensions, I think no Member desires to question the amount, because there is a feeling in the country that we would far rather see as much money as possible added to the Ministry for this purpose than see the sum cut down unnecessarily. I am satisfied that every taxpayer in the country is only too anxious that the pensioner should be looked after properly. My experience of my right hon. Friend at the Ministry reassures me in that respect, because I have been a good deal in touch with pension authorities, and I have been pleasurably and agreeably surprised to find that the work of the Ministry as a whole has been giving remarkable satisfaction to the country. The explanation of the savings is given under five sub-heads and I think the Ministry are to be congratulated on those savings. I was particularly interested in the last sub-head, namely, that which relates to savings in expenditure in connection with the provision of artificial appliances for disabled officers and men. When I was Minister of Pensions the Ministry dealt with this point with very great particularity. I myself, appointed a Committee, and I think my right hon. Friend who spoke last also appointed a Committee. I did not quite catch what my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said on this point, but I hope what he did say was to the effect that the savings under this head were the result of the recommendations of the last Committee appointed and were achieved, not by being stingy, but by means of the better contracts which the
Ministry were able to obtain because of the Committee's recommendations.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the last speaker said when he was dealing with the saving under another sub-head, namely, the saving in the pensions of dependents; I am certain no Member of this Committee would like to economise at the expense of the aged dependents of soldiers who fought in the Great War and I, too, would like to hear a fuller explanation from the Minister of Pensions when he replies to the Debate. To come to the Estimate itself, a net amount of £420,000 is required. I am certain that the reason which was given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for this Estimate was satisfactory to the Committee. I think I caught the gist of his argument acurately, and he explained that it was due to the fact that fewer pensioners or dependents had died than the anticipated number. We are all delighted to hear that, and I feel certain that if, when the Minister comes to reply, he gives the Committee any further information with regard to the point, the Committee will be glad to hear it. Meanwhile, all I have to say is that I think the Minister is to be congratulated on the Estimate and on the work which he is doing.

Mr. TOWNEND: Whilst expressing appreciation for the work of the Ministry, I cannot quite agree with the commendations of the last speaker, who seems to have been exceedingly fortunate in his experiences in connection with this Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman says that up and down the country, wherever he has gone, he has found practically nothing but satisfaction with the work of the Ministry. His experience must be unique. It certainly does not harmonise with mine, although I am prepared to say this in regard to the cases with which the Minister himself has dealt—that, bearing in mind all the difficulties which confront him, he might be worse. He might be more harsh in his dealings than he has been. I can quite understand the existence of dissatisfaction, because I suppose everyone cannot be satisfied, and the Ministry of Pensions ought not, perhaps, to be more generous than just. Nevertheless, I cannot give complete assent to the statement of the last speaker. I desire to ask the Minister two questions on the commutation
reference of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but I did not say a word about commutation. What I did say was that where there were weekly allowances plus terminal gratuities, the recipients were allowed to have the amount in one lump sum instead of having it paid weekly when the local war pensions committee recommended that this should be done. That is a different matter from commutation.

Mr. TOWNEND: I presume then that point is ruled out and that I cannot ask a question on commutation: I am rather sorry because I have been waiting for the Ministry for a long time. The other question which I desire to ask relates to the estimated saving of £5,000 under sub-head O.1—Medical Services. I would like to identify myself with what has been said from the front Opposition bench and I ask the Minister if it is not possible for the Ministry's system to be more elastic than apparently it is in these cases where the period has expired. Cases have gone before the medical board for final examination and yet we know that illnesses spring from—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is going into questions of policy on savings. On the other hand, it may be a satisfaction to the hon. Member to know that he may ask his question about commutation if he would like to do so.

Mr. TOWNEND: What I would like to know on the question of commutation is under two heads and I hope the Minister will endeavour to answer, because the matter is very important. I do not like the way the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is shaking his head—it is very ominous. I desire first to know what is the basis upon which commutations are established?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: On a point of Order. No money is being asked for in this Supplementary Estimate for the commutation of pensions.

The CHAIRMAN: Does it not come under sub-head K.1?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN: Then I am afraid I was wrong, and that the hon. Member is out of order after all.

Mr. TOWNEND: Is it not possible to put a second point?

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. Member's second point deals with the same matter. It would be in order, on the Appropriation Bill, or upon the main Estimate, but I am afraid it is not so at present.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: Let me utter a word of appreciation of the very clear and full account given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary secretary of the reasons for this divergence from the original Estimate. Let me also bear my personal testimony to the opinion expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), to the effect that there is a diminution of complaints. Certainly one cannot help being conscious of that diminution in one's correspondence. I rise to ask a question of the Minister. As I say, the account given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary of the reasons for this divergence from the original Estimate has been very full and clear, and we find that it is in substance due to a difference in the mortality figures, which are lower than had been expected. That is a very pleasant reason, but, coming to the question of the correctitude of Estimates, I want to ask the Minister whether he is really content with the exactness of his Estimates in this respect. We all know that exactness of Estimates is the foundation stone of regularity in the year's finance. When we come to this Pensions Estimate it occurs to me that it is matter for inquiry whether greater exactitude could not be obtained. Surely the mortality among a particular group of people is a subject for actuarial calculation. May we know whether the Minister has sufficient actuarial calculations made as to the probable mortality among pensioners in order to attain the maximum possible accuracy in his Estimate? I can only say that, at first sight, this suggests itself to one as a direction in which greater accuracy might be obtained. Merely for the purpose of illustration let me refer to the previous Estimate. There you had an entirely new
feature of administration, namely, widows' pensions and supplementary old age pensions and there the error was, in fact, just half of what arises in this case. I do not mean to condemn without evidence, but I suggest that this is a matter for inquiry in which we look to be reassured by the Minister.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish to intervene in a Debate on a Pensions Estimate and I have not risen now to make any special complaint against the Ministry or the Parliamentary Secretary or the administration of the Department. There are, however, some points which I wish to raise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) said he found the number of complaints was decreasing. That is not my experience. If the right hon. Gentleman had offered himself for re-election in Norwich on his change of party, he would have been more in touch with the electorate and he would have found that there are many complaints. I do not say that they are the fault of the Minister. He cannot keep in personal touch with all the ramifications of his department, but hard eases keep cropping up and I wish to know if some of these classes of cases do not account for the savings. To show I am not making any petty complaint against the Minister's Department may I say, speaking as a Member of Parliament, and I think with the concurrence of everyone in the Committee, that when we bring forward cases we are treated very promptly and carefully by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I believe that where justice can be done and a grievance made right, the Minister and his assistants see that it is done and that remark, of course, applies particularly to the Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Having said that I wish to ask some questions purely for information. First, what is the channel of complaint for ex-service men living in Ireland who are in receipt of pensions? I have between 20 and 30 letters a week from these people from Ireland and they say they have no one to whom they can apply to get justice and that they cannot get their letters answered. Speaking personally, I want to help these ex-service men, but it is a great nuisance to me and it puts extra work on me which I would rather give to
my own constituents. If it increases it may become a serious matter. If all the ex-service men in Ireland who have grievances are going to write to one hon. Member about particular cases I do not know where it will end. What is the machinery whereby a man living in Ireland can bring his case under notice? Take the case of a man whose pension suddenly stops through a mistake of the Post Office. That is one case which I had. What remedy, has such a man? To whom can he go? Is it any use for him to write directly to the Minister? Whatever the machinery may be, I suggest that the Minister should make it known in Ireland, either through the Post Office authorities or through the good offices of the Irish Free State and let these unfortunate people know what remedy they have when such cases occur.
With regard to the savings which have been effected, I am afraid that one reason why the parents' pensions have not been paid out to the extent which was budgeted for, is to be found in connection with a concession granted by my right hon. Friend who was Minister of Pensions in the Labour Government. He granted a concession whereby a mother s pension in respect of a son killed, could be transferred to the father, on the death of the mother. It is extraordinary the number of cases in which the surviving parent is not aware of this. This concession has been in operation for two or three years, but quite a number of these old men do not know that if the wife dies the pension is transferable to them, that is if the son who would have supported his parents has died. I suggest that it is a duty of the Minister of Pensions to make this fact known. This might account for some of the savings in the Estimate, although I am not quite clear on that point. But there are many of these cases up and down the country and I think the Ministry of Pensions should take steps to publish this fact, as it is not right anyone should omit to apply for the transfer of a pension through ignorance.
There are two other matters to which I desire to refer. They are rather delicate subjects and I do not want to press them unduly. The first is the case of the soldier's child born more than nine months after the man's discharge from the Army. There is no allowance for that
child even if the child is born one day over the nine months after the man's discharge from the Army. If this circumstance accounts for any of the savings in the Estimate, I think the Pensions Ministry might be a little more generous in these cases. I see the Minister of Pensions shakes his head. Perhaps I am misinformed on this point, but if there is anything in what I am putting forward I hope he will look into it. It is especially hard if the man dies and there are one or two young children in the family. In my opinion there should be a proper pension allowance for these young children. It is not the sort of economy that this House would wish to see brought about. That is one case. The other case to which I wish to draw attention is very difficult indeed. It is the case of the widow of a soldier—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that comes under any of the heads of the Supplementary Estimate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is Subhead E—Pensions and gratuities to widows and children of deceased officers of the Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force. It would probably not come under that, but I see Subhead M deals with pensions and gratuities to dependants other than widows and children of deceased seamen and of deceased warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Marines, Army and Air Force. I think that would cover it.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member wishes to argue a change in policy.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: No, Sir, I am not arguing for any change of policy. This is a purely administrative matter, and I am suggesting that if savings have been brought about by certain acts of the the Ministry of Pensions in this respect, it is rather regrettable. That is my argument.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member may ask if any part of the savings results from what he suggests.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will put my question in that way at once. It is the case of a widow of a
soldier who has a child some years after the death of the husband. It is a difficult case. The Department, I find, is sympathetic. Where, obviously, the woman is not leading an immoral life, she gets the benefit of the doubt, but there are many cases where she loses her pension, although the legitimate children receive their pensions just the same. I have come across many cases in which the woman has lost her pension. The circumstances I know are very difficult, but I think the administration might be a little more sympathetic in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can allow this. The hon. and gallant Member is arguing again a question which was before the House when the main Estimate was considered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Apparently I am not in order. I was only suggesting that there are too many cases where the pension has been taken away, but if that does not account for the saving in the Estimate I do not propose to pursue it. I am sorry if I have strayed at all in putting these questions to the Minister.

Mr. HARRIS: May I add my congratulations to the Minister for the sympathetic administration of his Department, and I want specially to congratulate him on his Parliamentary Private Secretary and the efficient way in which he answers letters. It is extraordinary how quickly he replies to letters sent to him and how good his memory is. I only rise to ask a question about the saving under the last sub-head, that is Sub-head O8, where there is shown a saving of £47,000 in connection with the provision of artificial appliances for disabled officers, nurses and men. I want to know whether this saving is the result of there being less claims for assistance or to the new contract, as I have reason to believe it is, which the Ministry of Pensions has carried through and by which they have now given a monopoly to one firm. That is a very important matter. At the time a Committee reported on this subject and as a result of their report this new arrangement was made; and it has resulted in a saving of £47,000. The Ministry is no doubt satisfied, but there is another side to the page, and there is doubt that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists amongst, many disabled men
because they are no longer allowed to go to the firms they have been accustomed to go for their appliances. I have had many complaints. For years these men have gone to one firm or another who understood their peculiarities, but under the new arrangement they have to go to a central depot. This also involves considerable travelling, especially in places like London where the distances are great. The men have to utilise omnibuses, which are very inconvenient—

The CHAIRMAN: I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions a question at this point. This new arrangement; has it been put in the Supplementary Estimate since the main Estimate was considered?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): No, it was introduced before the m tin Estimate was considered. It has been discussed.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it can be discussed now except by way of question.

Mr. HARRIS: I was not criticising the policy of the Ministry of Pensions, I was only asking the Minister to enlighten me on this point. I want to know how much of this saving of £47,000 is due to this new arrangement or bow much is due to the smaller number of claims for assistance that have been received.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: May I ask whether the effect of this new arrangement has been felt only since the original Estimate was introduced and discussed and whether we are not entitled to discus., it now?

Major TRYON: The contract was made in September, 1925.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not want to press my point, I only want some information on the matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it does involve a question of policy which should be discussed at the appropriate time.

Mr. GILLETT: I have no objection to the larger sum of money being granted to the Ministry of Pensions, but I cannot congratulate the Minister on the closeness of the Estimate. It is a little strange that year after year we do not get a much closer figure. Last year when I asked a question in the Public Accounts Committee as to why there had previously
been a Supplementary Estimate, I was told that it was partly due to the overseas claims coming in and to the fact that a number of people who had never had pensions before, were granted pensions after the Estimate had been presented. Those were the reasons for a Supplementary Estimate last year, and at the same time we were told that there would not be these claims coming in again from the Colonies and elsewhere.
It is a little strange to find, after this difficulty has been removed, that we still have an Estimate which is some £600,000 out, and I really should have thought the Ministry would have got their figures a little closer. The number of men making application for pensions must be getting smaller, and I should have thought it is fairly easy for the Ministry to know how many new pensions would come along. Looking at some of the other figures, it seems strange that no diminution was allowed for in Subhead E, and much credit cannot be taken by the Department for a reduction of £35,000 when we consider that no allowance was made for any diminution in respect of pensions and gratuities to widows and children of deceased officers of the Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force. With regard to the larger diminution under the head of medical treatment, I should like to have a little more explanation on that. I ask for more information in regard to artificial limbs. When the new arrangement was made there was a good deal of concern as to how the new system would work; that is, giving a monopoly into the hands of one firm, or rather into the hands of two firms. In the old days, the firms had their representatives throughout the country looking after the men, and I should like to know how far these two firms are pursuing this policy; whether they have their representatives going round seeing that the men who require new artificial limbs are able to obtain them easily. This large diminution, unless the Minister tells me that some of the men who have been receiving these limbs have died, which would be an explanation, indicates that the administration is not so efficient as it was, or that something has been put in the way to make it less easy for these men to get the new limbs they require. When we estimate a reduction of £33,000 and follow it up by a reduction of £47,000,
out of an original Estimate of £500,000, seems to me to require some explanation. I am exceedingly concerned whether, in this anxiety for economy, the Minister has not sacrificed the best interests of these men.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. OLIVER: I would like to ask the Minister whether this increase shown in this Estimate is due to any change of policy on the part of the Ministry in extending the pensions to the wives and dependants of soldiers who have married subsequently and died. If that were so, I should be the very first to congratulate the Ministry on this very admirable change of policy. The Minister is well aware that there have been very fine and difficult canes arising where men who have subsequently married and have had children and then died, where the wives have been deprived of the pensions, and where the children have been denied the dependants' allowance. If this expenditure had arisen in consequence of an alteration in policy, then I think it is a matter for congratulation, because, while the system obtained, the rankest possible injustice was done to men who were injured at the age of, say, 23 or 24, who subsequently married, and died and whose wives and families were deprived of pensions. There is one other point. I would like to know whether this increase, has been incurred in relation to men who have been injured for a number of years, who have developed subsequent neurasthenic complaints, and who, because their injuries dated hack more than seven years, have been denied a pension for subsequent ailments, such as nervous breakdown and general nervous debility. If this increase has been incurred through an alteration in the policy of the Ministry towards men of this description, ones again I join in hearty congratulations on the change, because rank injustices have been done in this kind of case in the past.

Mr. W. J. BAKER: I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) referring to what he described as the remarkable satisfaction in the country with the position concerning pensions. I am sorry to say that that does not coincide with my own limited experience. I very much regret to say that the position regarding pensions con-
cerns me very much indeed. It is difficult, nay, impossible for me to compare my experience with that of other hon. Gentlemen in this House, but, judging by what I have known myself, while I have no reason to complain of the attitude and action of the Ministry in relation to those cases which I have had an opportunity of representing to them, I must say that the number of cases coming into my handy appears to me to indicate that there is still an enormous problem so far as disabled men are concerned. I should have thought that, after the lapse of time, the number of cases would have fallen almost to nothing, yet it is a very remarkable week in which a number of cases dc not come to hand. Before I deal with that side of the question, I want to emphasise the point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett). Anyone who reads the Report of the Public Accounts Committee will be inclined to think that there is a case against the Department with regard to their method of estimating. It should be possible for them, as for other Departments who are perhaps in greater difficulties, to come somewhat closer to the figure. I am not altogether certain that it is a satisfactory reply for a Minister to say that, after all, the margin of error was merely one of 2 per cent. I think that it is possible for the Ministry of Pensions, together with one or two other Ministries who are particularly noticeable in this respect, to get nearer to the actual expenditure which is likely to be incurred, and I sincerely trust that they will find it possible to do better in subsequent years.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he will tell us exactly what relation the number of cases which pass through the hands of Members of Parliament bear to the total number of cases coming to the attention of his Department. I cannot help feeling that those disabled men who are fortunate enough to think of using the Parliamentary channel for their appeals are likely—to put no higher—to be more successful than those unfortunate folk who endeavour to fight their own appeals entirely off their own bat. I would be very glad, indeed, to have en assurance, if it can be given, that the number of cases com-
ing to the Department direct is decreasing at a greater rate than the number of cases which come into the hands of Members of Parliament. I do not suppose for one moment that any hon. Member of this House has any ground for complaint with regard to the cases submitted through that channel to the Minister, but I have a feeling that there must be many a poor chap in the country who is suffering under very terrible conditions because he was not wise enough, or fortunate enough, to choose the Parliamentary channel for the representation of his case. I am particularly alarmed and concerned with regard to one particular type mi case. I have seen two or three instances of this type during the last few days, and I can only reason from that fact that, if two or three cases of one type have come under my notice in such a short period, there must be a considerable number of such cases throughout the country. The type of ease to which I refer is that of a man who, having entered the Army as an A.1 man, had become unfit for further service and been granted a pension; who enjoyed chat pension for one, two or three years, and has had the pension stopped; and who, because he felt reasonably hopeful of better health in the future has found that his pension has ceased and his contract with the. Ministry has ceased, but, at a subsequent date, his disability has led to mental instability. In the two or three cases of this kind, which have come under my notice during the last few days, the men concerned are at the present moment the inmates of mental institutions. I want, very respectfully, to submit to the Minister that where there is such a health record as would establish these facts—namely entry into the Army as an A.1 man, discharge from the Army as a man suffering from a serious disability, the subsequent receipt of pension, the pension then ceasing and then the man being transferred to a mental hospital or institution—he will do his utmost, that even if it is necessary he will stretch the regulations and the law on behalf of such cases, and that he will relate the present mental disability with the known history of the man's case in the Army.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: You are very sanguine.

Mr. BAKER: My hon. and gallant Friend says I am very sanguine. Though he may not be sanguine, I think the facts of such a ease as I have roughly tried to outline should make a very strong appeal, not only to the Ministry but to every Member of this House. Though my hon. and gallant Friend may not be hopeful, I will repeat that appeal. I say that where a man has been known to suffer a disability, where he has been in receipt of a pension, and where after the pension has ceased he breaks down to the extent of being compelled to go into a mental institution, his case deserves consideration.

The CHAIRMAN: If a man is in such circumstances that it is necessary for him to become an inmate of a mental institution, I do not think that such a case will come under this heading. I think it will come under some other heading.

Mr. BAKER: The point. I am trying to make, in perhaps a poor and amateurish way, is that the sufferings which the man endured were responsible for his later condition, and I very much fear that the Ministry have not taken the line which I am endeavouring to appeal to them to consider. I have made the point which I wanted to make, and I can only say that I will be very grateful indeed if the Minister, in replying, will endeavour to give us figures showing the relation between the number of cases submitted through Parliamentary channels as compared with those which come through other sources.

Mr. KELLY: I want to ask a question with regard to three separate cases with which I am wondering whether the savings spoken of by the Minister can be connected. There are cases where a medical officer of the Ministry had for a considerable period decided against the individual, and then at another and recent stage—when I say a recent stage I mean within recent times—has decided that the individual requires treatment, showing therefore, that he ought to be dealt with under the warrant. I have such a case in my mind at the moment, and I will quote it so that the Minister may have an opportunity of ascertaining the facts. The case is that of a man named Jerome, who at the present time is in the hospital, I think, at Orpington, close to South-east London. It was denied by the medical
officer of the Ministry that the man was suffering at all by reason of his war service, and it looks to me as though the medical officer of the Ministry either took a very slight glance at the case or did not discover what was wrong with the man, and as a result the individual suffered. I wonder whether the saving that is quoted in this Supplementary Estimate—

Major TRYON: To which saving is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. KELLY: To the saving under Sub-head O.1—(Salaries, Wages, and Allowances, Medical Services).

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the lion. Member is discussing policy upon savings, and that, as I have pointed out to other hon. Members, would be out of order.

Mr. KELLY: It is not policy that I want to discuss, but I am wondering whether the saving mentioned is due to the method of administration by the Department. I leave it at that. The other case that I wish to mention, and that was hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. J. Baker), is where you have men who, to many people, seem to be entitled to pensions, and yet are denied them, some of them haying received a pension for a period, and then been placed in a mental institution, and the Ministry denying that that is the result of war service. I know of many such cases in Lancashire, and I wonder whether the Ministry are claiming that the sum for which they are asking is at the figure named by reason of the denial of pension to those particular people. There is a third category that I wish to mention, and that is those people who have themselves been saving the Ministry from any payment in the past, people who declined to claim a pension and allowed the full period of seven years to elapse before presenting any claim, but who would have been entitled to a pension had they claimed within that period. I ask the Minister if he claims that the Ministry is saving by reason of these people who have not claimed a pension, although fully entitled to it, because they did not desire to burden the Ministry. While putting these questions, I wish to add my tribute to the Minister and to his secretaries
and his staff for the way in which they have dealt with very many cases that I have submitted to them.

Major COHEN: On Sub-head O.8—(Expenditure in connection with the provision of Artificial Appliances for Disabled Officers, Nurses, and Men)—I should like to know why that reduction has taken place. Is is that we are supplying less limbs now, or is it due to the Ministry last year cutting down the numbers of limb-makers and in now going to only two of them, as they do, instead of to something like a dozen? I am not criticising their action, or, if so, it is criticising it in a favourable sense, because I think they are supplying a better limb, but I would like to have a little information on the, subject.

Mr. BROMLEY: I should like to put one question to the Minister, and to preface it with my appreciation of the very kindly and sympathetic way in which the right hon. Gentleman has always treated pension eases which I have had to submit to him from my constituents, but I think that sometimes—and this is what I would like the Minister kindly to consider—we do not get, right down to his local advisers, the same kind of sympathetic consideration of cases, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not in some way issue some instructions asking for greater care in preventing really good cases being turned down. I have in my mind just one case that I will give as an illustration out of two or three cases. It is of a man who served in the Army, and went through the South African War. He served again for four years and a half in the late War, and was discharged with the rank of sergeant, badly incapacitated, with a 50 per cent. pension. He received hospital treatment and was discharged from Mossley Hill Hospital, Liverpool, as finally incurable of his disability, but the whole of his pension has been removed, and the 50 per cent. which he was given has been quietly taken away on the supposition that it could not he directly and absolutely attributable to war service. I would suggest, with all respect, that it appears to be rather a far-fetched argument to suggest in the ease of a man, after 4½ years of evidently good service, as he obtained the rank of sergeant, with the necessity of hospital treatment so
often, that it is not in any way directly or indirectly due to his military service. I feel sure that, when the Minister himself comes right up against such cases, they always do receive very sympathetic consideration, and I am only too delighted, to pay that tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that it is possible that he may help in a good cause and increase the needed money over his Estimates by advantageously dealing with cases of this sort through more sympathetic treatment on the part of Ins local representatives.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in coming to this Committee and asking for the additional money that is required. For myself, I am bound to say that I am astonished at the amount being so small, and I should have been better pleased, having regard to my experience of how men are complaining in the country, if it had been a larger sum. I am rather near the pensions offices, the area and the sub-offices, and I am now dealing with a good deal of the extra work that is being entailed upon those offices. My complaint is similar to that of the last speaker, namely, that we do not get quite near enough to the Ministry. The regulations have been built up in such a way with the medical service that we cannot get very many of these cases in, and instead of being here to-day asking for £600,000, I feel that, if we were to deal fairly with, and fulfil the pledges given to, the men in the country at the commencement of the War, this Estimate would have been nearer £1,000,000 than £600,000. I know I should be out of order if I went in the direction of quoting cases, but I should like the Minister, with regard to the savings under Sub-heads A and E, to give us, not in detail, but in sections, some of the bulks of the savings and how they have been effected. I find a good deal of complaint in the country with regard to new regulations being made that are sent to the people in the area and sub-area offices, having the result of cutting down pensions and gratuities that, in our opinion, ought to be paid.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I should like some information as to prospective arrangements under the medical department of the pensions office in Dundee.
We have had some correspondence with the Department on the question of men recommended by the local medical officer for an increased pension, and at times those recommendations having been turned down at headquarters. That sort of thing has taken place, and undoubtedly we have had a feeling that there was reason for dissatisfaction at such events taking place, seeing that the man in any case of the kind was examined by the local medical officer, and it does strike one as rather disappointing that those who have not had the opportunity of studying the case in person should afterwards turn down the recommendations made by the local people. Like the last speaker, I feel it would be all the more gratifying if we had been able to get a larger claim by the Minister. Disappointment still rests with many of the men who have been, through their representatives in Parliament, seeking to obtain justice, as they have felt, and as those who are recommending them have felt, they were entitled to receive. The attitude that has been adopted in these cases is very unsatisfactory. The feeling is that there is too much stress laid upon technical points, and rather too strict an adherence to regulations on the question of the time at which an appeal may have been submitted, or an effort made to secure a reconsideration of the case.
There is one instance that we have, still, fortunately, with a prospect of success, of a man's claim in regard to bronchitis, which had been acknowledged by the medical fraternity and by the Department, but now a further development of the case has affected the heart, and still there is disinclination on the part of the Ministry to recognise the man's claim under the new circumstances, whereby he is being completely debarred from following his ordinary avocation. Fortunately, we are still very hopeful that the Ministry will acknowledge the strength of the case on the new phase that has been presented.

Major TRYON: I deem myself very fortunate that I follow in this Debate two right hon. Gentlemen who have previously held the office for which I am now responsible, and, in view of the many kind things that have been said about our efforts for the ex-service men, and what we try to do when Members of all parties bring forward eases, I
think my right hon. Friends will agree that we ought to pay a tribute to the staff itself. They have difficult work, and I am sure no one has ever been at the Ministry of Pensions without coming away with great admiration for the staff, and pride in having been associated with them. A very natural point has been raised, namely, the relation of Members of Parliament to pensioners and their pensions. The view was put forward—and I agree with it profoundly—that it would be very unsatisfactory if pensioners got anything more by taking their case to a Member of Parliament than otherwise. Of course we are in this difficulty, that if a Member of Parliament brings a case to us, and it does not go through, we are sometimes criticised at it not getting through, and, if it goes through, it is open to the objection just mentioned.
May I point out that we have many local committees. My hon. and gallant Friend and I have been round the whole country meeting the chairmen of our committees, and I think there is quite a strong feeling among our voluntary workers, with which Members of Parliament will, probably, find themselves in agreement, that the process of the local offices and of the local committees ought to he exhausted before anybody approaches a Member of Parliament. I have myself known quite a number of cases in which a pensioner, anxious to obtain a pension from the State, has begun by writing to his Member of Parliament. That is wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad hon. Members agree with me. We have large numbers of committees of voluntary workers all over the country in practically unreduced numbers. If any pensioners and applicants have a grievance, they can and should complain to those local committees, and local inquiries can be held, and they will there receive the assistance of people, many of whom for eight and 10 years have been devoting all their spare time to helping ex-service men. Therefore, while, of course, we should be fairly criticised if we have done anything wrong, pensioners and ex-service men should go to those committees before coming to Members of Parliament with their cases and correspondence. On that point, the question
arises how many cases are coming in, and whether things are better or worse? If the number of cases coming through Members of Parliament to us is a test, I can only say that the number of complaints, or rather the number of letters, we are getting in the course of three months is almost exactly one-third of what we were getting in 1924. So that if that be a measure, then things are better.
I will deal briefly, but I hope completely, with the points raised to-night. On the question of reduction of staff, that is necessary, because, as I say, there are far fewer applications coming in, as far more men are in a settled position through having had their pension assessments guaranteed by final awards. The work is much less, and it is only right, if the work is much legs, that there should be a smaller staff. On the question of officers' widows, it was pointed out, I think, by my right hon. Friend that there was a reduction of £35,000, which, he said, was comparatively large. It is not really a very large sum compared with nearly £2,000,000, which is the sum Voted. There are a large number of factors which go to decide this question, such as whether some of the widows die or marry, which it is obviously beyond the Ministry to prophesy. Beyond those points, it is not possible to forecast exactly the result of the large number of events whicch are outside our control. On the question of lump sums, I think it has been already pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we were alluding to lump sum payments of final weekly allowances, which is entirely different from commutation of pension. One hon. Member referred to commutation. If he would see me about it, or write about it, I would take up the point, which he was necessarily not able to take up on this occasion.
The question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich Mr. Hilton Young), if I may say so with much respect, seems to be the most legitimate of all the criticism directed against the Ministry to-day, because it is naturally our duty to bring in Estimates as accurate as possible; otherwise you involve the taxpayer in paying taxes which are not expended, or you get
Supplementary Estimates. But if we are still imperfect, we are improving. Three years ago it was 3 per cent. of error, last year 2 per cent., and now we have got it down to 1 per cent. May I say also to my right hon. Friend that we are not in a position of saying definitely that we will spend a definite amount on a particular subject. You can say you will lay down so many ships, or provide a definite sum for housing, but no man can say what is going to happen over the whole range of something like 1,750,000 people provided for by the Ministry of Pensions. Therefore, you cannot prophesy with accuracy, and say to a man, "Your leg is worse, but I have exhausted my Estimate." We have always felt with confidence that we could come to the House and ask for a Supplementary Vote, especially as on this occasion the whole benefit goes to the ex-service men. There are so many uncontrollable factors, any one of which may make a difference of £100,000 or £200,000, that it is not possible with certainty to get closer than on this occasion when the net error is only about £400,000.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who raised the question of Ireland, asked what was the normal channel of communication, and implied with pardonable lamentation that he himself was the main channel of that communication. There is no need for the pensioners in Ireland to adopt that course, because in Ireland they have all those resources of local committees, area offices and other advantages, which I have already described in the earlier part of my speech, all being available for the ex-service men, the only difference being that in Ireland there is a larger proportion of staff, officials and committees in proportion to the men they serve than in any other part of the country. So that I do not think there is really any legitimate grievance over that.
Now we come to the question of limbs, about which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen) asked me a question. It is quite true that, thanks to that committee of which he was a distinguished member, there has been a considerable saving, because we get better contracts with the two firms, and the limbs, as he said, are very satisfactory. But we had allowed in the
original Estimate for the bulk of the saving due to the activities of that committee. The bulk of the present additional saving is due to the fact that we are getting very many fewer applications from men for these artificial limbs, and the House will realise that when you have a very large number of men disabled, and you push on successfully with completing the equipment of those men with the limbs they require, it is natural that there should afterwards be a falling off in the number of applications.

Major COHEN: Have they all got two now?

Major TRYON: I should like to verify that. I am told that some have not applied, but everyone can have two. The hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) referred to his own special difficulties, and if he has any point he would like to put to me afterwards., I shall be very happy to go into it.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The point I want to make is that our applications are increasing. We are now getting about 10 a week, whereas we used to get only four or five a week. They are all coming to the local committee and to the area office.

Major TRYON: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for that information, but it is not generally the case that applications are going up throughout the country. They are getting fewer and fewer. I think I have dealt with every point except some of the individual cases mentioned. If any hon. Member who has mentioned individual cases would be so kind as to write to me about them, and particularly the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley), I would be happy to go into them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before leaving these detailed cases, will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about the living soldier who has a child horn more than nine months after his discharge and gets no allowance for that child?

Major TRYON: I understand that a limit of more than nine months is given, but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we take the man with his
liabilities when disabled for pension purposes. Children who are born many years afterwards do not come in for the pension, but they do come in for treatment allowances.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: There was a reduction under one head about which I asked for a reply. It was on the very difficult subject of dependants' pensions, under which there was a reduction on the original Estimate of £125,000 and on this Estimate of £50,000, and I put one or two questions asking for reasons.

Major TRYON: There has been no reduction whatever owing to any change of policy. There has been no change of policy whatever. As a matter of fact, the bulk of these men and women are of very considerable age, and there have been many more deaths than we anticipated.

Mr. ROBERTS: There was one specific question as to whether in the case of an aged dependant who becomes entitled to a pension from other sources, a reduction is made?

Major TRYON: It depends on the pension. There are several kinds of pensions. There is a pre-war dependency pension, there is a flat rate pension of 5s. weekly, and there is a pension based on need, in which other Regulations are taken into account; otherwise we should not be fair to applicants. On the point raised as to whether the parent knows about the possibilities of the transfer of the pension, we do all we can to let the survivor know, and notification to that effect actually appears on the "Ring Paper." Finally, while we have not attained absolute accuracy in the presentation of these Estimates, we are year after year trying to get more accurate in our figures. We are dealing with colossal sums and there are so many points out of our control, that I am afraid it will never be possible to arrive at complete accuracy in our Estimates.

Mr. OLIVER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question whether there has been any change of policy on the part of the Ministry in extending a pension to the wife of a soldier who married subsequent to his injury?

Major TRYON: Oh, no. It has always been the policy of all Governments and of all parties to maintain that.

Mr. OLIVER: Is there any prospect of the Ministry taking into consideration the very hard cases which arise under that decision?

Major TRYON: On a Supplementary Estimate I can hardly undertake to propose a sweeping change in the whole principle of pensions.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is there any prospective change in the medical representation in the areas?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is outside the scope of this Vote.

Mr. ROBERTS: I would like to repeat a question with regard to the medical services. There is a reduction of £5,000, following on £54,000, and I would like to know whether that is due to interference with the mode of treatment and forcing men to see their own panel doctors in preference to the Ministry's doctors?

Major TRYON: No, Sir, the reduction is due to a reduction in the number of deputy commissioners of medical services and a smaller medical staff consequent on the fall in the volume of work. There is no change whatever in the system.

Mr. LAWSON: It is very natural that we should run the risk of being accused of self-congratulation in dealing with this Vote, and I think we have rather fallen into that danger. While it is a matter for congratulation in this case that we are passing a Supplementary Estimate for £600,000, I regret that we are unable to discuss the very cases which everybody present wishes to discuss. There really is a skeleton in the cupboard, the skeleton being the man who ought to have had a pension, and who to-day, when in grave need, is not getting that pension. From that point of view I could have wished the Estimate had been even larger than it is. I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to satisfy the Public Accounts Committee in a matter of this kind by reason of the varying nature of the demands made upon the Ministry, but as a matter of fact I think the Ministry have gone a long way to making things more stable by the final award Regulations. Everyone knows that there are men who are in such a pitiable condition that, if their cases had not been dealt with under the final award Regulations, they would have been a charge on this Estimate to-
day. I am sure the Minister has in hand now a case which it brought to him of a man who served for three or four years, who was Al when he went into the service, who is now hopelessly broken and on crutches, and is in receipt of poor relief. I am sure that is not what the Committee would desire, but the fact is this man was subject to the final award. The Minister may say he could have had the opportunity of treatment and allowances, but he went beyond the 12 months, and now he is in a pitiable condition.
I am wondering what is the real explanation of the reduction of £5,000 on the medical services. All in this Committee must know of cases where men ought to be receiving treatment, and sometimes treatment and allowances, and are getting neither. I have in mind the case of a man receiving a certain pension who has not been working since the middle of December. The first to draw my attention to it was the manager of the place where he had been employed. This is a case where there is perfect cooperation between the employer and the employé. The manager, who wrote to me, has tried to get the man treatment and allowances. The man has been unemployed—

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister has definitely stated that this is not an account for any reduction or change of policy, and there is no item on the Paper in respect of treatment. The hon. Member's question must, therefore, stand over to another occasion.

Mr. LAWSON: I understand the Estimate actually does include medical services.

The CHAIRMAN: No, there is a saving on medical services, but, as I pointed out, it has been ruled by several of my predecessors that we cannot discuss policy upon savings.

Mr. LAWSON: My point is that I am asking the Minister whether it is a fact that cases of this description arise as the result of this saving. Here is a man who, under ordinary circumstances, I think, would have been receiving treatment, indeed, receiving treatment and allowances, but is now receiving nothing at all, except bare pension.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that question has been put to the Minister and he said the whole of this £5,000 had been saved on quite other grounds. I am afraid the hon. Member must wait for the other Vote.

Mr. LAWSON: I will not pursue that further now. I understand the Minister says it is possible in the case of need pensions for mothers still to get pensions up to 25s.—that the reductions in need pensions were not made on a drastic scale, and that pensioners were entitled to get other pensions, say old age pensions, and need pensions up to the extent of 25s. What I wish to know is when they are entitled to that maximum? I would like to know if it is not a fad that reductions on a rather drastic scale are made in the need pension when the pensioner becomes entitled to other pensions.
All these, however, are general matters, and what everybody here wanted to talk about was individual cases. We can all say nice things about the Minister, who is extremely courteous and painstaking, but, then, the chief officer always is very nice, and it is the poor old sergeant-major who usually "gets it," and, therefore, I should be inclined to extend congratulations to the staff, who have a very difficult task to perform and one requiring very great patience indeed. What I want to emphasise to the Committee is that, in spite of everything that is done, in spite of this £600,000 Supplementary Estimate, men have been ruled out of pensions who, as the years go by, show more and more the need for special consideration. Then there are the cases of men getting 20 per cent, or 30 per cent. disability pension. While the man is working he is satisfied with that pension, being extremely modest he does not ask for anything more, but when unemployment comes and he loses his job the pension is useless to support him. While, therefore, I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the Supplementary Estimate of £600,000, I would much prefer that we should have been able to discuss what I have called the "skeleton in the cupboard "—one day the Pensions' Administration will have to face it—and that is the cases of men who have been ruled out and turned down though everyone in the district where they live feel they are entitled to pensions.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I would like to ask the Minister whether any portion of the saving of £5,000 on medical services is due to the reduction in the number of hospitals? In the North we have a distinct grievance on this point. I have a case in mind of a young man who is in need of treatment and has been told that he must go down to an hospital in Kent. His doctor says that, under no circumstances can he be permitted to travel from Durham to Kent, and I am wondering whether the Minister could not arrange to have places in the North of England to which our people could go.

The CHAIRMAN: That must come up on the general Vote.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: In view of the general trend of the discussion and the replies which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have made, I would like to ask leave to withdraw the Motion for the reduction of the Vote, but, at the same time, I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall return to some of these points when the main Estimates come up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £322,295, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing. Grants to Local Authorities, &c., Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925, and certain Grants-in-Aid.

6.0 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As the Committee will observe, the first item in this Supplementary Estimate covers salaries, wages and allowances. Those items have been increased mainly through the coming into operation of the Contributory Pensions Act. In addition, there have been certain officers appointed, including a dental officer, a district medical officer and in the medical referee services, to assist in carrying out the machinery of this Act. Following
upon these activities, there are, of course, certain additions to the travelling expenses. Under the heading "F/" there are grants towards housing expenses of the scheme which the Government instituted "or supplementing ordinary house-building methods. In the main this extra expenditure has been incurred owing to the speed with which the 2,000 original houses have been built. While in one sense it is unfortunate that Parliament should be asked for more money, on the other hand it is, perhaps, a matter of congratulation that housing has been expedited, and that of the 2,000 houses we anticipate that 1,750 will be completed within the period With which we are dealing. I have also to say that the Government have decided to continue this policy, and they are asking for an additional sum to cover their extension of the contract with the housing company for an additional 1,000 houses. These are the steel houses which have proved by experience to commend themselves to the people and to the company which has been carrying out this work. I now turn to the Rosyth housing scheme. I think hon. Members are aware of the great difficulties which faced the company responsible for carrying out the Rosyth housing scheme owing to the change in Admiralty policy and the reduction of personnel at Rosyth. Although there have been increased rates and a certain number of houses unoccupied, I am happy to say that, owing to the Treasury having approved of the reduction of the rents by 43 per cent. so as to make them the same as those charged to Admiralty employees, thus bringing the rents down to one level, we have been able to find tenants for the great majority of those houses, and I think there are only 34 houses which are unoccupied at the present time. While it is true that since the 1st January, 1926, 1,217 houses have been given up, no less than 1,182 of those houses have been re-let. I hope that it will be found in the future that this scheme will be of great benefit to that district.
We now come to the item for maternity and child welfare. This amount has been considerably increased owing to the very heavy claims which have fallen on this service during the recent trouble in the country. Of course, I shall be prepared
to answer any question which may be raised on that and which any hon. Member may desire to put to me. The treatment of tuberculosis shows also a serious increase, and that is in the main due to one factor and one factor alone, namely, the great increase in the price of fuel during the strike period. The last part of this Vote relates to sickness, disablement, maternity, etc., benefits. I can only say with regard to this problem that it is one which has shown rather an alarming increase, and one which is causing considerable difficulty both to the Board of Health and the medical profession in ascertaining exactly why this trouble should have arisen. I believe it is a problem which has arisen owing to the very abnormal circumstances, and I hope it will not show on investigation any slackness of administration or lack of appreciation on the part of the medical men who have to deal with it. At any rate, this is a matter which my Department is taking up with those responsible, and I can only say that during the period in which this enormous rise took place, there was no real epidemic of sickness, or any difficulty which would have given rise to that, and equally on the other hand it was surprising to find how on a certain date this expenditure fell with great rapidity. It is quite clear that this has been in the main due to the abnormal circumstances, and the difficulties in which many people have been placed in the administration of this service. It is a matter which we are investigating, and a question upon which something further will be heard. Of course, I shall be very glad to answer any further questions which may be out to me on this Vote.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I think that the Committee is entitled to a fuller explanation as to the reasons why such a large Supplementary Estimate has been put forward, amounting to an additional sum of £322,295. Before such a Vote be passed some very good grounds should be made out why such an addition to our annual expenditure has been found to be necessary. Personally, I do not object to increased expenditure if the money be wisely spent, and if that section of the community who are in need of help are getting the benefit of the money which is expended. Unfortunately, this is just the point where some of us part company with the Secretary
of State for Scotland. We are not convinced that the money the right hon. Gentleman is asking for is necessary in some instances, or that it has been wisely spent in others. Take, for example, the first item mentioned, namely, "Salaries, Wages and Allowances." The right hon. Gentleman told us in a word or two that that did not apply to any increases in salaries, but that it was mainly owing to additional expenditure in connection with the administration of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there had been no increase in wages.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It was a question of increasing the staff in order to administer those pensions.

Mr. ADAMSON: I understood it was a question rather of increasing the salaries because of the extra work involved, and I objected to that at a time when other sections of the community had to suffer a reduction of wages.

Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to £7,300 of the £9,000 for salaries, wages and allowances, is it not a fact that the £7,300 was for an entirely new staff on account of the administration of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is so.

Mr. ADAMSON: I was pointing out that, if it were a question of increasing the salaries, the Government would have been doing it at a time when other sections of the community were having to suffer reductions in wages, and not only that, but at a time when they were having their hours' of labour increased. Take the miners, for example. If it were a question of increasing salaries under conditions like that it would have been very objectionable. I notice that an additional sum of £2,000 is required for travelling expenses. I do not think the Secretary of State for Scotland said a single word in explanation as to why at a time like this an additional £2,000 was required for travelling expenses, and I think the Committee are entitled to have a much fuller explanation regarding an item of that kind. There is a further additional sum of £165,000 required for grants towards housing expenses. I say, quite frankly, that I am not objecting
because this sum is a large one if it is making ample provision for housing our people. Under those circumstances, I should have commended the right hon. Gentleman for spending more money to provide the necessary houses, providing those houses were of the right type.
We have got very little explanation as to whether the £165,000 additional expenditure has been spent on providing brick houses or steel houses. The Committee will remember that, first of all, steel houses were proposed, and there was a considerable amount of criticism levelled against that proposal. Now we have had a little experience of steel houses in Scotland in various parts of the country where they have been erected, and people occupying them are finding from experience that a considerable amount of the criticism made against the proposal at first was quite justified. I find that the people who are occupying the steel houses, although they have nothing to complain of in regard to the accommodation which they say is quite equal to the brick or stone houses that have been put up, say that in the winter the steel houses are very much colder than the brick or stone houses, and that is one of the criticisms which was made when the proposal was first mentioned in this House. At that time it was pointed out to the Secretary of State for Scotland and others that a steel house was not a suitable house for the Scottish climate, because it would be found in practice that a steel house would be much colder than a brick or a stone house. Now we are finding out from the experience of those occupying steel houses that our criticism has been fully justified. They say that so cold are these houses that they are not getting value for the rent they are paying—that the rent they are paying is far too high for the type of house they are getting.
Again, we have found that the steel house is not so likely to stand the storms that we occasionally get in Scotland as the brick house or the stone house. The Under-Secretary will know that in some instances these steel houses have suffered very badly as the result of some of the storms that we have had in recent times. I think that that is an experience which ought to guide the Scottish Board of Health and the Secretary of State for
Scotland, and that they will require to give very serious consideration to the question whether it is profitable to proceed with the building of many more of these houses. The steel house is repugnant to a considerable section of the Scottish people. We do not like the idea of any section of our people being housed in steel houses, and the experience of those who are occupying them should cause the Secretary of State and the Scottish Board of Health to pause before spending more money on providing houses of that type.
I regret that the Secretary of State, when he came to the question of the building of the additional 1,000 houses, did not tell us of what type they were to be—whether they were to be brick houses or steel houses. Even if they are to be steel houses, he did not give us any information as to whether they were to be Weir houses, Atholl houses, or Cowieson houses. He knows that there is considerable disagreement as to the relative value even a the various types of steel houses that are being put up in Scotland, and I think that, before such a large additional sum as he is asking for is granted by this Committee, we are entitled to a much fuller explanation as to how he proposes to spend this money. Another of the items over which he passed very lightly was the deficit of £4,850 on the Rosyth Housing Scheme. He has already pointed out, and it, is within the knowledge of some of us, that while it was expected that when Rosyth closed down a large number of these houses would remain empty, it has not worked out in that way, but a considerable number of these houses have been taken up, after the Rosyth workmen left by other people, and it is rather a curious thing, with that experience before us, that an additional £4,850 should be required to be paid by the Scottish Board of Health to the Rosyth Housing Company.
Another item in this Supplementary Estimate is a sum of £48,700 for maternity and child welfare. That, again, is an item of expenditure with which I do not disagree; indeed, it is an expenditure with which I should have agreed even had the Secretary of State for Scotland been asking for a much larger sum. I think that, if the Scottish Board of Health had done its duty during the
trying times through which we came in the last nine months or thereabouts, it would have been asking for a much larger sum. The Scottish Board of Health, and I have no doubt the Secretary of State is aware of it, objected to our town councils and our parish councils doing so much child-welfare work during the stopapge of last year, and they held up loans, so far as the parish councils were concerned, until the parish councils would consent to take upon themselves the onus of making provision for child welfare. Some of us at the time pointed out that that was a curious line for the Scottish Board of Health to take, in view of the fact that town councils and parish councils were quite prepared to spend some money in attending to maternity and child-welfare work. The Scottish Board of Health, however, objected, but I believe the chief reason for their objecting was that, so long as the expenditure was being incurred by the town councils or the county councils, they had 50 per cent. of the expenditure to meet. I think that the town councils and the county councils and the Scottish Board of Health were much better able to meet that expenditure than the parish councils were. Our parish councils were heavily burdened as the result of providing for emergency relief for the wives and children of our people during that trying time, and that was a direction in which the Secretary of State and the Scottish Board of Health could have well afforded to increase their expenditure and ask for a bigger Supplementary Estimate for that purpose than this sum of £48,700.
Another item on which I want to say a word is the sum of £20,000 for tuberculosis. I understood the Secretary of State for Scotland to say that this additional expenditure is largely accounted for by the increased price of coal during last year. I am very much surprised to find that the coal bill in our tuberculosis institutions increased by £20,000. I fear we shall require some further explanation regarding this item of expenditure than that it was simply in consequence of the additional cost of fuel. Another point on which I think we are entitled to more information than has already been given is in regard to the last item in the Supplementary Estimate, namely, Appropriations-in-Aid. There is
a sum here, "Receipts in connection with Rosyth Housing Scheme, £627," and there are other sums mentioned, regarding which we have had little or no explanation. I think the Committee is entitled to a much fuller explanation as to the necessity for spending this sum of £322,000 odd than has yet been given, and I hope that we shall have such explanation before this discussion finishes.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There are two parts of this Estimate upon which I should like to reinforce the complaints of insufficiency of information which have been put by say right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). I refer first to Sub-head F.1, Grants towards Housing Expenses. I should like to know something more about this subsidy towards the erection of further steel houses. We are told that a further 1,000 steel houses are to be erected, and I should like to know from the Under-Secretary what his experience really is regarding cities where steel houses, brick houses and cement block houses have been erected. How do these three compare? Take, for example, the City of Dundee, where an English contractor was given a contract for 500 houses on the cement block principle, he guaranteeing to take 400 unskilled men from the Employment Exchange for every 500 houses he is allowed to put up. I-Te takes these 400 men, and he not only pays them the 1s. 3d. which is the minimum rate of wages in the building trade, but, in addition to that, he pays them a bonus on wages, which, added to their normal building trade wages, brought their total rate of wages up to about £3 6s. 8d. a week.
What is the Board of Health's experience in Dundee? How do these houses in The Law compare with the steel houses erected on the Broughty Ferry Road? Are they cheaper? Is it the case that the local housing authority there estimate that the upkeep costs of the steel houses will be much greater than the upkeep costs in the case of the brick houses or of the cement block houses that have been built? I have seen them all, and, so far as I am concerned, if I were given the choice as to which of the three kinds of houses I would live in, I would certainly choose either the brick or the cement block house in preference to the steel one. But here, evidently, the
Scottish Board of Health are encouraging the erection of further steel houses, and I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether, as the result of the experience of the last year in Scotland, it would not be more advisable that his Department should encourage the building of these cement block houses? Then I should like to hear from him whether it is the case that Messrs. Weir, who are very probably going to get the majority if not the whole of the new contract for 1,000 houses, are still engaged in wage breaking? Is it the case that they broke the rate of wages on the Glasgow housing scheme—that the Duke of Athol] in the case of the Atholl house, and Messrs. Cowieson in the case of the Cowieson house, are paying the normal rates of wages to unskilled labourers on their contracts, whereas the Weir firm actually broke the rate of wages down to 10½d. an hour?
Then, with regard to Subhead H.2, I think we really ought to have a little more information than the Secretary of State for Scotland vouchsafed to the Committee in his opening remarks. This £93,000 required as an additional Estimate is in my judgment really due to poverty. It is necessity and hunger that cause this expenditure, and we ought to have a statement of the areas and the blocks of towns in which the expenditure has been incurred. This is really a distressed area. In these areas it is not the fault of the tax-raising arrangements for the relief of the poor. You have the poor keeping the poor. You have areas which are unable to bear their present burden being called upon to meet additional burdens, and unfortunately it is in these areas where our distressed industries, steel, coal and so on, so largely operate. These industries are very heavily burdened and handicapped in competition with industries elsewhere in this country and outside it. The fact of the matter is that these areas, already heavily overburdened, with the heaviest rates, are the areas where the health of the people is worst and where we shall have to incur in future years a very much larger sum by way of ambulance work to endeavour to repair the broken bodies and the physique of the people. We ought to have a very much fuller and wider statement of the position in which the Secretary of State
finds himself so far as concerns these areas. You have areas which are practically paying no poor rate at all. Where there are no industries, or the industries are not handicapped, they are getting off lightly, but where the poor live, the areas where the industries are harassed are called upon to bear the burden, and I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would use the opportunity to make a wide survey of the facts and draw public attention to a very serious and very clamant evil, which this House would do well it an early opportunity to take in hand.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a few questions. With regard to Item A1, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, and additional provision for extra staff, I know quite well that this extra staff is required, and, seeing that it has been employed and we are asked to contribute £9,000 towards the extra expenditure, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation of the delay in the payment of the benefits to people to whom they are due. In Item F1, Grant towards Housing Expenses, we have the additional provision required for advances made to the Scottish National Housing Trust. We are asked here for £165,000. We want to know if you are going to continue to give preference to a type of house that is not suited to Scotland. They might be made more substantial than they are, because they have not been able to stand our inclement weather. In the storm about a month ago at Robroyston their homes were blown all over the place. They were not able to stand our inclement weather. There is no denying that fact. I hope, therefore, you are not going to give them precedence when you write out the contracts for the building of houses. I am prepared to accept any kind of house, because we are in desperate need of houses, but those houses should be made to meet the requirements, having due regard to our inclement weather, because if the storm that struck Scotland about a month ago had struck some of the towns in England it would have wiped them out. It is because of the substantial nature, generally speaking, of the houses in Scotland that we were able to withstand the 110 miles rate at which the wind was travelling.
You have to have regard to that when you are dealing with the housing question. I believe it is possible to build steel houses, wooden houses, concrete or cement block houses, and brick houses which will withstand the weather, but you have to have all these things in your mind when you are handing out a contract, and not simply hand it out to some of your friends, because Lord Weir is a particular friend of the Tory party in these days. There is no denying that fact, having due regard to the Duchess' husband and the Atholl Department. How it is I do not know, but there is no doubt that Lord Weir has been able to bring special pressure on the Government, because this house is not the best type of house. No one in the Government has been able to prove that the Weir house is a better type than any other temporary house, because it is only temporary. Yet Lord Weir is favoured, and from the point of view of the working class he is the worst employer, and we have fought him most. We have put up every kind of objection, and our case has been a perfectly legitimate case against Lord Weir, because Lord Weir has gone out of his way time and time again to crush the workers clown to the very lowest. Even at this moment, when China is before us, this same Lord Weir of the Weir housing scheme was the man who caused the first trouble on the Clyde, because he brought Chinese into the moulding shops in order that the Scottish labourers should be sent into the trenches. Lord Weir and men of his type do not give a button. They have no sentiment, no patriotism, and absolutely no country. The only thing that weighs with them is making the bawbees.
The next item that comes under my review is G2, Treatment of Tuberculosis. When I bring this before your notice, I think you will have in your mind's eve a recent deputation which I was on from the Dumbartonshire Education Authority. I was the only Socialist there except my agent, who happens to be a member of the education authority. It was really a Tory deputation. The spokesman was the chairman of the education authority, a professor. He explained that there were 700 children in Dumbartonshire, which includes my constituency, Clydebank and Dumbarton, who had to go to school in our inclement weather in winter time without boots. We were there appealing to you because
the parish councils were not able to give any more allowance. They were practically bankrupt. There were two parishes that were prepared to fall in with the idea, the reason being that they had no poor, Helensburgh and Bearsden. Those are the two places that do not pay, but Clydebank and Dumbarton are direct payers. It is in Clydebank and Dumbarton where the money is made in Dumbartonshire, but though the money is made there, those who walk away with the money live in Helens-burgh and in Bearsden, and they escape the taxation for unemployment on the Clyde. They do not pay their fair share. That is why we appeal to you as Secretary of State for Scotland, who represent us in the Cabinet, and it is your duty to represent our people in the Cabinet. We have appealed to you time and again to draw the attention of the Cabinet to the fact that the unemployment question is a national question and should be made a charge on the entire nation, and that districts such as Clydebank and Dumbarton should not be made to carry the whole of its unemployment, while Bearsden and Helensburgh go scot free. Your constituency does not pay its fair share.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): Will the hon. Member kindly address me and not the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am in the habit of addressing the Secretary of State for Scotland, or dressing him down, and that is the explanation which I think is due on this occasion. But that is the reason why there is so much tuberculosis abroad. There are more tubercular cases in the West of Scotland than in any part of England, and the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary along with him, who is a doctor by profession, ought to think shame of themselves that they do not use all their influence in the House to change that state of things. We in Scotland are a hardy race. Had that not been the case we would have been wiped out by the voracious and the ferocious employing class in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State, who is designated the Minister of Health, are both cognisant of the fact that it is because of bad housing conditions in the West of Scotland, the low standard of life and
the poor wages paid that our people are in a terrible state so far as health is concerned. It is no use the Under-Secretary saying in reply how the death rate is decreasing.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not go into the whole policy of the Government on this Vote. There is an additional sum required under G.2 of £20,000 for treatment of tuberculosis, mainly due to the increased cost of fuel. That is the only matter for discussion under that particular heading.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I agree at once that that is the item, but I am trying to show why there is tuberculosis.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have explained to the hon. Member that he cannot deal with that on this Vote; he can only do that on the main Vote and not on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I leave it with you. You are the judge between me and yourself. There is an item of £20,000 in respect of approved schemes for the treatment of tuberculosis, and I am trying to show to the best of my humble ability, that tuberculosis is prevalent in the West of Scotland more than in England. That is wrong and need not be, and I am protesting against it. I am trying to show that it is wrong. We are not going to lie down and tolerate the continuance of this state of affairs. I am glad to see the Prime Minister present, because I want to point out that our folk and the mothers of our children are as good mothers as ever there were in Britain.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not the time to deal with that question. The only question that we have to discuss now is the extra. £20,000 required. The whole policy of the Government as to treatment must be dealt with on the main Vote and not on this Vote.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is evident that you have made up your mind you will not allow me to proceed on the line that. I am taking, and I bow to your ruling. I want an explanation of the expenditure of this £20,000. I want to know who has got the £20,000. Is it the coalowners who have got it? I am perfectly satisfied that the colliers have not got it. It is
the colliers who produce the fuel, not the owners, and it is the colliers who suffer from tuberculosis, and not the owners. I wish it was the owners who suffered. It is because of the reasons which I have stated that we have tuberculosis. The position is aggravated by our having to pay an extra £20,000, and that £20,000 has gone to the coalowners. At any rate, it has not gone to the working class. It may not be quite accurate to say that it has gone to the coalowners.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Hear, head!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The one thing I am satisfied about is that it has not gone to the working classes. It may have gone to some engineering employers. Under Item K, I would like some explanation of the £18,679 refund in respect of expenses incurred in administering the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. The expert in that, the Under-Secretary of State, is now sitting on the right hand of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This huge sum of £18,000 is a bagatelle to you fellows; it is not very much when you say it quickly, but it is a good deal to the workers. Why has there been so much trouble on our part in order to get widows and orphans on to this pensions scheme3? I should like answers to these questions.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: It is deplorable that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be bringing forward Supplementary Estimates which are so large and so absolutely opposite, to what the Scottish nation would like, and so fraught with the opposite spirit of that which they would like to see, namely, the spirit of economy and carefulness in administration: in short, the spirit of thrift. On the first item, A.1, for additional staff required in connection with developments arising out of the administration of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, a sum of £7,300 is required, and for provision for additional staff, £1,700. There are large sums. I agree with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) that they are very large sums, and they argue a lack of prevision and a lack of careful financial control for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. Provision is required for additional staff. I notice that provision is always found in Govern-
ment offices for headquarter staff, but when it comes to provision of the salaries of other staffs year after year, the staffs, for instance, of colleges and so forth working under the headquarter staff, we have to press the Secretary of State for Scotland to pay heed to the just claims, for example, of the Scottish Agricultural Colleges, and, year after year, we are fobbed off with all sorts of excuses.
Then there is the question of travelling expenses under Item B, which has increased by 14 per cent, over the original Estimate. I submit that an increase of 14 per cent. is a very wide margin for his Department to be responsible for and, again, it argues lack of prevision and hick of strict financial control. Tinder Item F.1, Giants towards Housing Expenses, we find 11 per cent, more than was estimated for when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his housing proposals. If we could see a great forward housing move up and down the country, and if we in the country distracts could sec a great forward movement as a result of the Act we passed last year, I should be perhaps less critical than I feel inclined to be, but the benefit of these schemes, such as it is, is confined to certain chosen areas, and even there, if one can judge from the speeches delivered by hon. Members who represent those areas, the benefits are not very highly appreciated.
Then we come to the Rosyth housing scheme. This is, perhaps, one of the most interesting items in the Supplementary Estimate. Here is an expenditure which is 17 per cent. higher than was anticipated when the original Estimate was passed. This expenditure was upon a scheme which was one of the economy schemes of the present Government, namely, the reduction of the Rosyth dockyard. I speak as one who is always glad to see,, wherever it is possible, reduction in the expenditure upon armaments, but why this up-to-date dockyard in Scotland was scrapped when obsolete dockyards in the South of England were kept on, I never could understand. It was always told us that the reason was that we were going to get considerable ecenomy as a result. Many hon. Members who sit on this side said at the time that against any economies which the Government were going to make they were gravely under-estimating the expenditure
in which they would be involved, and we find in this particular case alone, in the case of the Rosyth housing scheme, that the economy was over-estimated by no less than 17 per cent. When we come to Item 11.2, Sickness, Disablement, Maternity, etc., Benefits (Grants-in-Aid), the right hon. Gentleman said, in introducing the Estimate, that this £93,000 was due to some error or laxity in administration in his office.

Sir GILMOUR: I never said in my office, but among those who had to administer the Act.

7.0 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I must apologise for misrepresenting what the right lion Gentleman said, but I think the explanation which he gave was so curt, so short, and rather perfunctory, that I would ask him or the Under-Secretary to give us some clear account of what has happened, so that we may know where this sum of £93,000 has disappeared. Is it the approved societies of which the right hon. Gentleman is complaining? Is it the doctors against whom his complaint is lodged? Who is responsible for this waste of £93,000? I understand that the right hen. Gentleman's inquiries are not quite complete, and he may not be able to give us a considered judgment, but let us, at any rate, have some information as to how this sum, of £93,000 was squandered by somebody, and in what direction. I feel convinced, therefore, that the people in Scotland will be horrified at this great. Vote of £322,000 for this one body of Scottish administration. The Government preached economy to us two years ago, and in their Speech they said it was essential if the industries of this country were to revive. We in Scotland would like to sec our Scottish Office giving a lead in that respect, but, instead of that, we find, as compared with ail the other Government Departments for whom we nave had Supplementary Estimates in the last two weeks, that this Scottish Board of Health is actually making greater demands and is showing a greater lack of financial control and prevision than any of the other Government Departments.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), who said that we would not grudge expenditure if it was necessary and wisely spent, but it is just because
there are so many traces of unwisdom of expenditure and lack of proper financial control that it is essential for us to criticise this Estimate. The Scottish Office is in a fair way of earning a reputation for being the most extravagant of all Departments. We see it, for example, selling sheep stock which 18 months ago were worth over £20,000 for £10,000. You see it here making this great demand which is greater than in any other Department, and I hope that we shall have, from the Minister who replies, clearer, more adequate, and fuller information on the points which have been raised, and that we shall also have an assurance that the utmost pains will be taken in estimating in the coming year so that when the Scottish Estimates are brought in there will be some prospect that they will not be exceeded in the course of the year.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), in opening from this side, made special reference to the steel houses and a very authoritative statement as to how those houses are being considered from the standpoint of residence and actual experience, and evidently he has found that disappointment exists concerning these houses. I have had some correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland on this question, but we have not yet got satisfaction. Seeing that the rent of these steel houses is to be £27 as against £22 10s. for the brick house, we should like to know whether that is to be accounted for by such indications as were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, and whether the cost of upkeep necessitates this demand for extra rent? Whether that is so or not, it is undoubtedly a very grave reason for dissatisfaction when the people who are being obliged to reside in steel houses are having to pay such a rent as £27 while those who are having the very much better facility of the brick house, which is provided under other schemes, are only paying £22 10s. From a personal examination of the houses, and particularly the interior, I think there is not a shadow of doubt that the brick house in the finished state is far and away a more comfortable house than the steel one.
In regard to contract prices, regarding which I was very pleased to receive an
answer to a question, we find that for the steel houses in the particular class which we are considering, £357 is given in one case as against £380 in the other. Those are the figures for steel houses according to the Department's own figures. The figure that is given by the City Engineer for the brick house, which is so much preferred and for which so much less rent is paid, is £410. The right hon. Gentleman, in the correspondence which I had with him, indicated that the figure which was given for the rents was on a par with houses which had been erected much earlier in Dundee by the Corporation. The answer to that is, as we have since explained—although we have not yet had the reply—that those other houses were produced under the 1919 Act and therefore cannot be fairly compared in connection with the question which we urged on behalf of the Corporation. The Corporation has certainly urged—and we think rightly urged—that this question of the higher rents charged for the steel houses should really be seriously reconsidered, and that some advantage should be given in the way of a reduction, particularly when we have in view the point I have sought to emphasise, that the brick house is a very much better house.
There was a statement made which I quoted, that the steel houses in Glasgow were the only houses which had really suffered serious damage, and I had from the right hon. Gentleman a reply, somewhat guarded, of course, that his information was not just confirmatory or something to that effect, but we did not get the benefit of knowing what had been the results as far as he had learned. Now we have had it from the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) in a statement about which there can be no doubt. He said they were blown about all over the place. That needs some answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland. I could not have managed to say that, but the hon. Member for Dumbarton has such powers of visualisation that he had no doubt whatever the houses were blown about all over the place. We do want something in the form of a straightforward reply. It is not a matter for correspondence but for verbal statements, and I certainly express the sincere hope that we are going to get satisfaction on behalf of the Corporation, by effecting an improvement in these rents for steel houses. Another
point—applicable to various parts of the country—is that those old-time war huts are unfortunately still being occupied by people, some of whom have been in them for seven years. Some of the huts are getting in a very bad state and require the attention of the sanitary inspectors. I should like to ask whether any general impetus is being given by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to the corporations of the country to sec that preferential consideration is given to those who are unfortunately obliged to reside in wooden huts. Scotland is now suffering badly, and we are in sore need, having more to deal with than we can manage to handle.
I think I am perfectly in order in saying there is a great deal more we should like to have brought before the Secretary of State for Scotland, but in any case we want some consideration to the fact that steel houses are unsatisfactory, that wooden houses are worse, and that we have proved now that brick houses are satisfactory to Scotland and that they are remarkably good houses. We have got past the stage of the answer we got from another Conservative Government when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, answering on that occasion and supported then by his chief, Lord Novae, said that brick houses would never suit Scotland. We, have passed that stage, and brick houses are established in Scotland, and are being found exceedingly satisfactory, while, as we have proved here to-day, the rents are very much cheaper. They are better houses, and, consequently, we do not want to have more steel houses. If you are obliged to have them, surely, with the figures that have been quoted for the contract prices, as against those for brick houses, we ought to get them at much cheaper rents than at present.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: We are really very much disappointed, and I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland is disappointed, at the size of the Supplementary Estimate which is being introduced to-day, but I must say we are glad to have considerable farther information with regard to two or three items. With reference to the first item, with regard to salaries, wages and allowances, of course, salaries and wages are required for these officers, but why did we not foresee that these salaries and allowances would be
required and have provision made for them in the original Estimates? We have had no proper explanation as to why they are only included now in a Supplementary Estimate. As regards the item, "Tuberculosis Treatment," the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the extra £20,000 was due very largely to the increased cost of coal. I should like to have some further information on that point. Does he really mean that some 10,000 tons of coal were purchased for the tuberculosis institutions or that the cost of running the institutions has gone up because of the coal strike and for other reasons? I think we want some further explanation than he has given.
Now I come to the more important item of £93,000 in respect of Sickness, Disablement, Maternity, etc. Benefits (Grant-in-Aid). There was a suggestion thrown out that that large sum arose owing to mal-administration, but we are kept in ignorance as to the cause of it. Who was it—the societies? How does it arise? It is not sufficient to say that inquiries are being made, and, if they are completed, we are to be told that it was very largely due to mal-administration. Here is the, Secretary of State for Scotland coming to the Committee with a Supplementary Estimate asking for £93,000 under this one head, and, before we are asked to pass the Vote, we are entitled to have a much fuller explanation than we have been accorded.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I am sorry I had not the privilege of hearing the statement of the Secretary for Scotland. Scottish Members have a small grievance that a Scottish Estimate should be put down for a Monday. It is very inconvenient, and I hope that if possible some other day will be allocated in the future. In regard to the item Fl, Grants towards Housing Expenses, I did not hear the explanation which was given regarding steel houses, but I expect that information has been asked for as to how these houses are pleasing the various corporations under whose auspices they have been put down. We cannot, within the limits of the Rules of the House, start again on this Estimate the question of steel houses versus brick houses or' wooden houses, though in that connection. I rather disagree with the hon. Member' for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) in regard to wooden houses. If wooden houses are
satisfactory in Canada and can stand the climate there, I see no reason why they should not do so here. I understand, however, that the cost of wooden houses is rather more than the cost of steel houses. I would like to have some idea as to whether steel houses have been supplied or are to be supplied under slum Clearance schemes. Though there seems to be a tendency on the Government side to consider that housing is more, or less satisfactory nowadays—an impression which, I think, is very erroneous—we have at least had an assurance that slum clearance schemes will be pushed on. I would like to know whether there is some idea of steel houses being used in that connection.
In regard to Rosyth I would like to emphasise, even if it is rather unkind, what the hon. Baronet said in regard to the economies we were to have as a result of the abandonment of Rosyth. It will be remembered that Scottish Members protested very strongly against this transaction. I am afraid that the voice of Scotland is generally ineffective in these matters, but whether it is ineffective or not, we who are Scotsmen and Members for Scotland must continue to raise our voices and claim justice for our country. Does this Estimate not prove one of the points which we made in our criticism, that there we had a big housing scheme on which a huge sum of money was spent, and that these houses would become a liability instead of an asset? I understood that many of these houses were being taken up by people from Edinburgh, who were travelling to and fro, and also by retired people who had settled down, and that the houses would probably not be left derelict. If that is not true, if a certain number of these houses have been left, or if in order to get them occupied the rents have been reduced below the economic rent, and if, though the houses have all been occupied, there is a deficit, it would be a matter of some interest to hear about it. In view of the housing scarcity in Edinburgh and many other adjacent districts I think that if reasonable facilities were offered for these houses to be occupied, something of such a deficit might be avoided.
Then I come to Sub-head H.2, for the large sum of £93,000. I am rather interested in an interjection by the right
hon. Gentleman which I heard and which suggested that the unfortunate doctors were to blame for this sum of £93,000. I think it must have been a very good effort on the part of the medical profession which could produce such an enormous deficit. But I would like the Secretary of State for Scotland either to justify or retract this slur upon an honourable profession. It seems to me that another explanation is possible and more likely. I understand the implication is that approved societies during this period went beyond the estimate which the Department had anticipated. Would it not be correct rather to suggest that the period of the stoppage was also a period when there was a very considerable increase in illness. I think that is really a significant point. There is a connection in this item with the Government Bill which is coming on this week in connection with poor relief. We know that in many of the mining areas the wife of the miner was getting poor relief hr herself and her children. In some cases the wife's and the children's food had even to be shared with the miner. I have no doubt that in many cases the miners and the others unemployed suffered very much in health as a result of insufficient food during the stoppage. It seems to me that the increased expenditure has probably not been due to the foolishness or weakness of doctors or to the maladministration of approved societies, but rather due to the great increase in sickness, which was the almost inevitable result of the suffering and privation which many of these men—miners and others—endured. I shall be very glad to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say in reply.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish at the outset to protest against the taking of the Scottish Estimates on a Monday, after it had been arranged that the Debate was to take place on a Tuesday. I do not know what is the reason for the alteration of the plan, but I am certain that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary know quite well that quite a number of the Members who reside in Scotland go home sometimes for the week-end, and find it impossible to arrive here before 6.30 or 7 or even 8 o'clock on a Monday night. I want to register my protest against interference with the understanding reached when we left this
Chamber on Friday as to the week's business and the order in which it was to be taken. It was understood that the Scottish Estimates were not to be taken to-night. Otherwise there would have have been a larger number of Scottish Members present, and undoubtedly those who would have taken part in the Debate would have had facts and figures which would have been put before the House in a way that cannot be done in the absence of those Members.
I wish to speak upon the question of Rosyth. It will be remembered that when it was announced by the Government that Rosyth Dockyard was to be closed down, the Scottish Members protested and pointed to the suitability of Rosyth for the Fleet. Unfortunately, the Secretary for Scotland was not strong enough in the Cabinet to have his way, and those in the Cabinet, who were interested in English dockyards seemed to have greater pull. The Cabinet decided to close Rosyth. We pointed out at the time that a large township had, been erected in Rosyth, that extensions had also been made in Dunfermline, and that quite a lot of public service had been undertaken by Dunfermline largely because of the promises of the Government. I want to know whether there is any other liability due by the Government to the Dunfermline Town Council or to any other public body in the area that has not yet been put forward in a Supplementary Estimate. We have mentioned here a sum of £4,000 odd to go to the building company which has had the Rosyth building schema. That, I understand, is due to the decrease in rents caused by the closing of the dockyard.
I want to know whether it is an end of the liability of the Government, or whether we are staving off the total sum that will ultimately have to be paid to liquidate the promises made to the local councils in and around that area, to some other Government which will take the present Government's place. After all, there ought to be at least some honour in this Government, and it ought to pay its own way, and not leave to posterity or to the Labour Government, that is bound to take its place, the payment of debts that are likely to be incurred in Fifeshire because of the folly and shortsightedness of the present Government. This House is entitled to be taken into
the confidence of the Government on questions of finance. Apart from the effect of the famous letter which was circulated all over the country, this Government was brought into office on the promise of economy. The House has not yet seen much of the economy proposals of the Government. We find year after year that the Estimates, instead of covering the total expenditure, have to be supplemented by further Votes. It is always better to hand back money that you do not require than to come to this House repeatedly asking for more money because of additional expenditure.
Another item that calls for explanation is A1—salaries, wages and allowances provision required for other additional staff, £1,700. What is the total staff, and what are the salaries? In Votes that came before the House we generally have a detailed statement, in an appendix, of the salaries of various members of the staffs in respective Departments, and we are able at once to see whether the Government are paying decent or extravagant salaries. It would have been much better in this case if the Secretary of State for Scotland had taken the House into his confidence and given us such details. I do not know whether the extra staff is to be permanent staff for the carrying on of the Contributory Pensions Act, or whether it is temporary staff only to be employed during the opening period of the operation of that. Act. There is simply the item "additional staff," and I cannot see why the Government should be asking £7,000 for temporary staff if at the same time £1,700 is required for additional permanent staff. That is another item which requires explanation.
I am also concerned at the suggestion that the blame for this item of £20,000, under the Subhead G (2), is to be placed on the coal stoppage. The Estimate states that the sum is "mainly due" to the increased cost of fuel. What is meant by "mainly due"? £11,000 would be the "main" part of £20,000, but there would still be £9,000 due to some other causes. The Committee should be told how much has been required for fuel and how much has been devoted to other purposes. The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to take the Committee more into his confidence in this matter. Day after day questions are addressed to the Secretary
for the Mines Department calling his attention to the high price of coal and the manner in which the consumer is being fleeced by the retailer. We want to know whether the Government purchases this coal in great quantities by contract; whether or not the contract prices have been broken and the original prices increased, or otherwise, how this additional cost has arisen? I take it, that the word "fuel" refers to coal; presumably there is very little peat burnt in these sanatoria and other institutions. We should also be informed exactly as to the other purpose or purposes for which this extra sum is required.
In all Debates on Scottish housing the question of the steel house arises. The Prime Minister having witnessed the "Blue Mountains" in Dundee, set out to destroy slumdom in Scotland, and he decided that the way in which to wipe out the "Blue Mountains" was to erect steel houses. Accordingly, permission was given for the erection of steel houses so that they might be "tried on the dogs" north of the Tweed. The experience we have had since the Prime Minister's pilgrimage to Dundee shows that the experiment has not been successful. Our experience has not corroborated the opinion held by the Prime Minister, backed up by the Secretary of State for Scotland and also, I think, by the Under-Secretary. Were the Prime Minister to see, to-day, some of the steel houses which have been erected since his famous visit to the slums of Dundee and Glasgow, I think he himself would not be willing to reside in any steel house which had been standing for a period of two years. I put it frankly to the Government that the steel houses have been tried and have proved a failure. They are not a cure, not even an alleviation in a small way of the housing shortage in Scotland, and it is high time that some other material was found. I am convinced, from what I have heard in discussing this matter with the building trade, that it is possible to secure a material as cheap, if not more cheap a material, which will be lasting and will also be artistic, a material far better in every way than the steel which is at present on the market and is being used in the erection of houses in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland need only go around his own constituency in Glasgow and he will see a number of fine houses which have been erected recently on terms Just as reasonable as those on which the steel houses have been erected. I am one of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents and I have a right to heckle him here, since I cannot attend his meetings. I suggest that he should walk round the Pollokshields district, instead of driving round it as lie usually does, and he will see these houses. I will go round with him on any Sunday and show him houses which have been erected at a cost as reasonable as any of the steel houses which he has subsidised. There is plenty of building material in Glasgow as both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary know. There is scarcely a corner in the centre of the city which has not been altered during the last two or three years by the erection of banks and insurance offices constructed of the finest stone and woodwork—towering edifices, six storeys high which are replacing the old buildings. If there is plenty of material for these buildings surely there is material for dwelling-houses? One has only to walk along Sauchichail Street to see that two great dance palaces have been erected there so that the people of Glasgow and visitors to Glasgow, including Cabinet Ministers, may have an opportunity of indulging in the "Charleston." There is ample material to provide decent houses for the working classes in place of the sardine boxes in which they are now being asked to reside.
I hope we shall have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the meaning of all these things. I hope he will let us know whether we may hope to have any attention paid to these matters during the remainder of the Government's term of office. Are the Government going to take thought and mend; are they going to get on with real housing reform, or are they going to continue year after year pottering with steel houses? If we have to spend money, let us spend money on something which will provide suitable houses, make the people comfortable and solve the housing problem. Let the Government erect something for which the people can praise them. There is no praise for the Government in connection with what they are erecting now. The people do not look
upon the present houses as monuments of progress, but as monuments of shame. They stand as a confession of the incapacity of a Government which could not see far enough ahead to solve one of the simplest problems—the housing problem of our time.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I am in a difficulty to-night. In connection with these discussions T have often complained bitterly about the administration of the Secretary of State for Scotland and about the manner in which these Estimates are made. I want to say now that the Scottish Board of Health was placed in a very difficult position during the last year and for the first time I find myself in the position of congratulating them on the way in which they have overcome those difficulties. I think they have shown more soul than they are in the habit of showing in dealing with present problems, and since we have criticised them at other times it is only fair we should give them credit when they do some good. The Committee know that in connection with the big industrial stoppage last year great privation existed among numbers of our people. On the whole they met us fairly well in that connection and I cannot complain about a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter of that kind. While I say that the Board of Health showed a certain amount of soul, I think at the same time that the Secretary of State for Scotland was none too generous in connection with the prosecutions and sentences in the-Scottish Courts.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that will be out of order.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I accept your ruling, Sir, but I hope the Secretary for Scotland has an idea of how we feel on the matter. The information which I want is in connection with salaries. I expect that additional staff is required where there is additional work, but I would like to know the number of extra staff engaged. Are these positions to be the perquisites of hangers-on, near the Scottish Board of Health in Edinburgh, or are they to be open to the country on merit and by a system of examination? In all my local government experience I have never met one from the West country who was working in an office, and who got into a berth of that
kind, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain the method of appointment. I wonder if the additional sum for housing is a reflex of success in the provision of more houses, or does it mean that the cost of building material has gone higher than was anticipated? I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to assure us on that point. It has often occurred that just as we were beginning to build houses the cost of material has gone up, and no steps have been taken by the present Government to control any increase in prices. That is one of the failures of the present system.
I have never opposed the erection of steel houses; for reasons of my own. The dearth of houses was so great that I felt it was better to have houses of some kind rather than continue the slums and the lack of houses which existed North of the Tweed. I never agreed that the steel house is a cheap house. As a matter of fact, the cheapest house you can build is a brick house. Steel houses are much dearer, especially when you take their length of life into account. I have had complaints in connection with many of the steel houses that have been erected, and from personal examination I maintain that they have not fulfilled expectations. They have been criticised furiously by some hon. Members on this side of the House, and in my opinion that criticism has been justified in the short period during which they have been built. It would be much better to take the advice given by hon. Members on this side of the House and not waste public money on the erection of steel houses when you can build brick houses. We have not had many brick houses built in Scotland, and for the reason that we have, no brickworks, as in England. Most of our houses are built of stone and I hope that, in the future the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider the erection of more stone buildings in Scotland, or, at any rate, that the frontage will be of stone, and thus give employment to the stonemasons and quarrymen in Scotland.
I should also like to refer to the additional cost of coal. I think we- ought to have more information on this point. Hon. Members know that when the country was threatened with trouble in the coalfields that the Government was preparing for a long time. I wonder how much the Government spent in the pur-
chase of coal; did they wait until the stoppage arrived and then rush into the market and buy? I want to know where the Government bought coal, and what price they paid for it. I also want to know whether the Government made large contracts at high prices for foreign coal. It is regrettable that the Government should contract so far ahead and be compelled to take coal which can never be used. It would be much better to dump this coal into the sea rather than let it land. There is an increase under H.2., a very heavy increase, in connection with Grants-in-Aid for sickness and disablement benefit. Our men during the period of stoppage got no help unless it was given to their wives and children. The men would suffer rather than take the food which was provided for the wives and children. During that period also, there was a great increase in the examination of people who reported on to the sick fund under the National Health Insurance Act. I wonder if it cost more to keep people off the fund. This is the first time in my public life that I have been able to congratulate the Scottish Board of Health and I sincerely hope they will continue in their good work.

Mr. KIDD: I was rather disappointed to hear some of the criticisms from the other side of the Committee, particularly in regard to housing. Hon. Members opposite will no doubt agree with the general admiration expressed throughout Scotland for the splendid services which the Scottish Board of Health has done for the whole country in the matter of housing. The housing difficulty to-day is not the difficulty it was some two years ago, and that is entirely due to the diligent way in which the Government have pursued their housing policy. There is this to be said, in addition to what has been already said, on the subject of steel houses. Apart from any criticism which may be levelled on the ground of construction, the steel house has introduced that competition with builders of other forms of material which has resulted in bringing about the present housing conditions in Scotland, and I think we may now feel assured that the difficulty has been removed in regard to housing. If the steel houses have done nothing else than compel greater activity and greater competition, which has led to bringing
down the cost of builcing—the old kind of house can now be erected without subsidy—that alone, I think, entirely justifies it. I think the Secretary for Scotland has already had brought to his notice a little occurrence—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. KIDD: I think it only right to mention this, seeing that the occurrence took place in my own parish. No little alarm was created some eight days ago by iron houses, which were thought to be secure against fire, taking fire, with the result that one house was completely destroyed in 10 minutes, and the house next door was in a state of complete collapse in about 20 minutes. These houses were put up by subsidy by the county council, and it is rather important from the standpoint of the dwellers of these houses to point out that no fire brigade could be got because of some difficulty in determining who would pay the cost. The nearest fire brigade was called upon, or at least the police were invited to get that fire brigade, but until some guarantee was given as to who would be responsible for payment the fire brigade could not appear. Afterwards an effort was made to get another fire brigade, and this was secured without any such guarantee being asked, but before it arrived the fire had done all the damage it could and the two houses were destroyed. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to make an arrangement whereby any fire brigade of an adjoining borough can be called upon to attend such a fire as this. Here was the case of county council property, paid for by public subsidy, being destroyed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can pursue the subject of the payment of the fire brigade.

Mr. MACLEAN: Surely it is relevant on the question of the housing subsidy to discuss the inflammable material which is being used by certain people, who are receiving the subsidy, in the erection of these houses

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I allowed the hon. Member to go so far as to say that the fire brigade should be within call.

Mr. KIDD: I do not wish to press the point any further, but I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to attend to the matter. Another criticism was made on the other side with regard to salaries, wages, and allowances. I understand that the additional sum required is the result of the passing of the new Insurance Act, and I can hardly imagine anyone concerned with the recipients of these allowances taking any exception to the inevitable increase of staff which is necessary, more particularly when it is considered that the pensions of these people ought to be paid at the earliest possible moment and with the least possible delay.

Mr. MACLEAN: We do not take any exception. All we want is information.

Mr. KIDD: I have no doubt the information will be forthcoming, but it seems to me that the facts speak for themselves. The new Insurance Act is there, and it involves a large amount of work, to which attention should be given at once, so that these poor people shall receive their allowances without delay. This particular item is one which ought to have been particularly approved by hon. Members opposite, who profess particular anxiety for the working classes of this country. I have no more to say, and I conclude by congratulating the Scottish Board of Health on having given satisfaction in the matter of housing and expressing my agreement that the institution of the Insurance Act has necessarily involved this extra expenditure, which has been justified.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: The Estimates have been looked at from a liberal point of view through the eyes of the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). He spoke of what he called thrift and he seemed to think that we should have been excused if we had come here with no extra demands for money. When I heard him talk about thrift I understood how it was that in Scotland we do not use that word "thrift" in the same way as it is used in England. When the Minister pretended to talk about thrift he did not seem to understand the Scottish history or the Scottish character. The thrift of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland was speaking
was to do without something you need. There is no thrift in doing without things you need if you can get them. Coming to the subject dealt with under the heading F.1, I would like to know why it was that the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he made his statement to-day under this head, gave no indication as to what is to take place in regard to steel houses. He seemed to be rather inclined to get clear of what must be a very thorny and difficult subject. For instance, the Secretary of State for Scotland was here in the House one night when I made an effort to analyse the steel houses built and though the reply I got was made in my absence by the Minister of Health who did nothing else but apply insulting remarks to what I had said, I let them go, in the hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland would come along with some statement and show the House that the money spent and the money now being asked for was spent in a way that would give a full and sufficient return, as against money spent on other classes of houses that are better to live in and better houses.
I am not going again into the question of the construction of the houses with which I dealt before, but I want to draw attention to that part of my statement when I referred to what are called fireproof materials used in these steel houses. I said that night in the House that there was no such thing as fireproof material at all. I was laughed at; but here you have proof of that fact. At Bo'ness the fireproof divisional walls of the steel houses did not prevent the spread of the fire and the houses were burnt out before a fire brigade could be obtained. I would like the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with that side of the question. I know the bulk of the Members of the House get tired when anyone starts to talk about the technical side of a house, but when it comes to a question of life and death I would point out that it was only a chance that the people got clear of these houses. I want the Secretary of State to tell us just exactly what was the percentage of asbestos used in these boards and what were the other materials that were mixed, because, after all, when it comes to the question of fireproof material you may get a non-inflammable material, but you have never yet got a material that cannot be burnt. I would
like to get a real clear pronouncement in regard to that because the Secretary of State for Scotland made no reference in his speech to my previous statement. I would have thought that if I had been in his place and anyone in opposition to sue had detailed that house as I did that night I would have been after that fellow all the time and shown him if and where he was wrong.
The Secretary of State has never said yet what was the longest period of tenancy that he could record in a Weir house. There are other things beside asbestos which have to be attended to, and you have the statements made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) to the effect that brick houses are cheaper and better houses than the steel houses. You have not proved yet in any way what is the actual life of these steel houses. We have had proof of the life of stone and brick and concrete houses. I am not going to talk about my basic argument of corrosion. I am waiting until someone takes the inside panels to see what they are like six inches from the base. Some of these houses have been built in my constituency, and although the last gale of wind did not blow them away it bent the side of them —it made a curve. When it does that, you know how the house is built because it has to bend somewhere else. There is a good deal of opposition to these houses. Hon. Members ought to go up and talk to the people who live in them. They are a very humorous class of people who live there. If they had not a sense of humour they would have died.
Now I come to the question of child welfare, and I would like something to be said in the reply to my questions in regard to the light treatment that has taken place. I should like to know if any steps are to be taken to improve the health of the child by that treatment, whether we are going to have an increase in the number of centres and in the districts where light treatment will be given to the children, such treatment as is taking place now in the East End of Glasgow. The Under-Secretary knows all about it, and I hope he will tell us some thing about it. Under the heading G.2. I would like to know what is the annual consumption of coal? If we can be told the actual consumption of coal and the
actual average price, then we can deduct the six months' of the stoppage and we shall know exactly how much was paid for a ton of coal after the stoppage took place.
Then I should like to refer to the heading H2, on page 28, and I suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland that lie should get a regional nap of Scotland and just make black all the areas where this Grant-in-Aid applies. Let me take an ilustration. Here is an area called Cambuslang, and it comes specially under this head of Grant-in-Aid. In that district there is a big steel works. The week before last a new machine in those steel works produced 5,000 tons of finished steel-plate in five days. Here is the relation to this point that is contained in the heading H.2. One operation in that production of steel was performed by live men and it was previously done by 5, and here we have TO men brought under this heading H.2. If that increased power of production had been making less wealth in that area, and if there had been less coming from the machine, we could have understood the need for this.

The CHAIRMAN: How does the hon. Member bring this within the headings "Further provisions required owing to increased expenditure by Approved Societies"? That seems to me to be the point to which he should address himself.

Mr. HARDIE: In every district where you get this kind of poverty you get further claims made because of sickness, because you cannot have a body depleted of what it should have without having corresponding sickness, and I am showing here that this is not a question of unemployment due to lack of work, but I am showing that it is a question of displacement by scientific improvements. These men are being thrown out of work permanently, and surely that is a matter of harm and conies under this heading. These improvements are displacing the men, and it is likely that this displacement will become permanent and that it will not be a matter a Supplementary Estimate alone. Unless we reorganise our industry so that increased wealth does not mean increased poverty, this is likely to be permanent. I hope the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State will take note of these points when he replies.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I think it is a matter for congratulation for all of us that we have been able to debate this Supplementary Estimate in the very reasonable and helpful manner in which the Committee has debated it. The questions asked have been addressed to the points at issue and if, for some reason or another, I cannot answer them all I am sure hon. Members opposite will acquit me of any discourtesy since in some cases I am prevented from replying by a lack of knowledge and in other cases by fear of the Rules of the House. It would not be possible for me to go into the question of light treatment and the extension of child welfare centres in Glasgow, on this Supplementary Estimate, and the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) who has a very accurate knowledge of the rules of Order as we have heard by his objections when he was pulled up by you, Mr. Hope, I am sure realises that.
The general debate has ranged over three main heads. We have had the question of the increases in salaries, the question whether the increase in the Vote for health meant a deterioration of health or whether there is some other explanation for it, and, finally, the debate ranged over the question of housing and particularly the question of the Supplementary Estimate for the additional programme in regard to the provision of steel houses
With regard to the first, detailed questions have boon put, particularly by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), as to how the increased salaries were male up. The increased items here are partly temporary and partly permanent. During the launching of the old age pensions scheme, considerable temporary staff had to be taken on, and in addition there is a permanent enlargement of the staff which will be necessary to deal with the running of this scheme. The item of £9,000 for salaries includes £7,700 for temporary staff. The balance is for staff which will have to be permanently retained. The Committee will see, therefore that the majority of this expenditure is of a temporary nature and will not recur. In fact, a proportion of this will he recovered from one fund or another.
On the Vote for tuberculosis, the hon. Member for Springburn, in particular,
stressed the point that he was anxious to have a statement as to what amount of coal had been purchased and as to the distribution of this coal, and other hon. Members also made inquiries about the contracts for this coal. This is an Estimate to deal with an anticipated demand from the local authorities. There has been none of this coal purchased by the Government. We have not, placed any contracts in respect to this coal, and it is not possible for us to give exact figures such as have been asked for, because it is not our responsibility, but that of a number of local authorities scattered throughout the country. In particular, their financial year does not end till the lath May, and it would thus be quite impossible for us to give exact information at this moment. No doubt it might be possible later to call for a return of the exact amount of coal used by the various organisations throughout the country but we could not get it from Government figures, and it would mean making special inquiries from the local authorities in this regard.
The third general question raised was that of housing. The auxiliary programme to which the Secretary of State referred was undertaken—and this is the essence of the problem— because of the delay which we experienced in getting the normal programmes carried out. The normal programmes are speeding up, and a very gratifying increase has taken place. The best single figure that I can give the Committee is that at the beginning of last year we had 13,000 houses under construction, and at the beginning of this year we had 19,000 under construction. In addition, there are 8,000 houses which are arranged for but not commenced, so that there are between 27,000 and 28,000 houses actually in sight. The number completed last year was about 12,500 of brick and 1,100 of steel, and consequently I do not think it can be said that we are exercising any undue favouritism for the steel house or going too far in the development of an alternative method if we are asking the Committee to make provision for the building of 1,000 additional steel houses, when we can show that we are making provision for building 28,000 houses by the normal method of construction. Therefore, I should think that, on the general lines of policy, the Committee
will acquit us of any other motive than the motive to accelerate and speed up the housing programmes in Scotland and to provide houses of one kind or another to deal with the demand, which is still so great in Scotland and in respect of which we are still far short as compared with the position in England.
Certain specific questions were raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Dundee mentioned the rents of the steel houses in his city, and in reply I will simply say that the difference between the rent of the local authority's house and the rent of the steel house is exactly the difference of the subsidy provided out of the rates by the local authority. If the local authority cares to provide a similar subsidy out of the rates towards the steel houses, we should have no hesitation in reducing the rents by that amount. In regard to the steel houses, it is important to note that no burden of any kind is placed on the local authority in whose area they are built, whereas in the case of houses built under any of the Acts, the Chamberlain Act, the Wheatley Act, or any of the schemes, a burden is placed on the local authority, and to that extent, therefore, we claim that we have gone to a considerable length in meeting burden.; placed on the black areas, as described by the hon. Member for Springburn, in that we do provide a scheme which at any rate provides unemployed men with employment., and employment of a useful kind, producing an article which is eagerly competed for by the mass of the people. I wish we could say the same for all unemployment schemes which have been promoted by this and ether Governments.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) put some questions, and the skill which he showed in introducing on a Supplementary Estimate for the Board of Health the question of the disposal of the Erribol sheep stocks, as compared with the price of other sheep stocks, showed that perhaps, not since the days of the Irish Members, has so ingenious an invasion of the Rules of the House taken place. The right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) referred to the travelling expenses and asked why these were higher. One of the main reasons was because, owing to the increased number of claims on the
approved societies, there was an increased number of examinations. A considerable part of these travelling expenses will not be those of officials but of patients brought from one part or another of the country. The right hon. Member referred to child welfare and touched on a dispute he has pursued for some time with the Scottish Board of Health as to the burdens on the parishes. I should he out of order in referring to the question now, but we have not been unmindful of the parishes, as he will see on reference to the terms of the Bill recently presented to this House.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels), and several other hon. Members animadverted upon the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the £93,000 by which the sickness benefit had gone up was due to some extent to mal-administration. I have every desire in the world to avoid that somewhat unpalatable conclusion, but I cannot entirely acquit the administration, particularly the medical administration of benefit, from having had a share in the very rapid rise in the curve of benefit which is seen in the months of the coal dispute. It was not and could not have beer due to a great increase in sickness. The great increase in sickness could not have been and was not purely a temporary thing of that nature. You would have found some reflection of that increase of sickness in some of the other sickness curves, but none of the other vital statistic curves have moved at all compabably. We do not find any corresponding peak in any of the curves except the benefit curve, and when you get a monetary curve moving like that, and all the vital curves remaining down, the conclusion is forced on one that this distortion is due to some other than a purely medical factor.

Dr. SHIELS: Was there any increase in sickness?

Major ELLIOT: There was an increase in sickness benefit, but whether there was a corresponding increase in sickness or not is a question which is engaging the attention, not only of the Board of Health but also of the Ministry of Health and of the British Medical Association and the insurance committees, all of which bodies are going into the matter very carefully at the present time. It would be premature to say
more, but it is the case that there was a rise in the sickness benefit, but no corresponding rise took place in, for instance, any of the epidemic diseases.

Dr. SHIELS: Is it not likely that those suffering from insufficiency of food would be more subject to disease than others of the population?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot follow this argument, but it seems to me that this is a matter of maternity and child welfare. Now we are getting on to epidemics affecting the population as a whole.

Major ELLIOT: I have not gone into details. This is not really maternity and child welfare benefit, because the increase under includes sickness benefit, and under sickness benefit there is an additional sum required of £93,000. That is expenditure by the approved societies and we are discussing this matter in connection with that.

The CHAIRMAN: That would be in order, but it seems rather a transition from maternity.

Major ELLIOT: It is so, but it is expenditure by approved societies. It would not be possible, of course, for me to go into this matter at great length at this time, but hon. Members who raised it may be assured that we are inquiring into the matter of medical supervision, for a rise of this kind at frequent intervals would bankrupt the whole insurance scheme.

Dr. SHIELS: Is the implied suggestion Hut doctors have certified people as being ill when they are not?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member and myself are members of the medical profession, and therefore we can say things with regard to that profession which we should bitterly resent if mentioned by and all I will say is that the sickness benefit seems certainly above the sickness rates. We have examined this question, and this question is being examined now. The statutory conditions with regard to sickness were undoubtedly relaxed in the period of the stoppage. Whether that was right or wrong—and the conclusions one must draw from that are not to be examined just now—there is the reason of the big rise in the benefits under this scheme.
The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) raised some points with regard to the steel house scheme, and they were reiterated by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. The hon. Member for Dundee approved of £3 6s. 8d. per week as a wage paid by another firm building in Dundee. I have had the figures taken out, and I find that the average wages paid to all outdoor workers on the Weir scheme works out at £3 11s. per week, which is 4s. better than the wages held up for admiration by the junior Member for Dundee.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Can you tell us the number of hours worked?

Major ELLIOT: I think that the number was 47 hours, but I am not going into that now. One wonders at the mentality of hon. Gentlemen who object to a good wage being paid because the day has been longer. I myself and every hon. Member in this House would rather work longer and take more money than work less and take more leisure.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman approves of Sunday work.

Major ELLIOT: I was discussing the very germane point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee as to whether a wage-breaking policy was being conducted by His Majesty's Government, and I was pointing out that the average wage comes to no less than £3 11s. per week. I say that is a scheme worthy of the admiration and support of Members to whatever party they may belong.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the wage paid on a scheme in Shettleston is only obtainable by the men when they are working on Saturday afternoon, and that if it comes on wet they are sent home in the middle of the day and get no payment?

Major ELLIOT: I only mentioned the average wage. The worker on shell erection gets as much as £4 and on partitions over £7. If a man works on Saturday afternoon, producing a thing as badly needed as houses, and if he works overtime, which every trade regards as legitimate for housing, and if in addition he is also making a good wage, we should not begrudge his making a few shillings more a week.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the experience is that he is working more than a normal week.

Major ELLIOT: If no one in this House worked more than a normal week, we should all get home at a more reasonable time.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are not normal people.

Major ELLIOT: I will leave that matter for discussion between the hon. Member and his constituents. Hon. Members have complained in regard to the Rosyth housing scheme that an economy is not being shown and that additional money is required. Let me point out that it has always been stated that an additional burden would be thrown on public funds in relation to the Rosyth housing scheme because of the closing down of Rosyth dockyard. It was going to be made up by savings on other Votes, and so it has been and when the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean)—for Govan, a shipbuilding centre—complains bitterly that money is not being spent on keeping the dockyard open, I would like to point out to him that the money is being spent in Govan and elsewhere in the building of ships. A Member for a Clyde constituency should be the last to object to anyone shutting down a dockyard if it is going to give more money for building shins for the Navy.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am sorry to intervene, but I must defend my colleague. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows perfectly well that he is misrepresenting the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). He knows that Rosyth does not, generally speaking, compete with the Clyde, that on the Clyde we build ships, whereas Rosyth is simply a navel dockyard where they do repairs.

Major ELLIOT: I should be quite out of order in going into those arguments. What. I was doing in reply to complaints raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House that a saving on Rosyth was not being realised, was to point out that the Housing Vote is not the place to look for the materialisation of savings, that hon. Members should look in the Admiralty Vote. The point was also raised, whether all Scottish Members should protest when there was a question of
shutting down Rosyth, and I said that it was very ill-advised for a Member for a shipbuilding constituency to raise that question. Still, I do not wish to be drawn into Debates on points which, however interesting to Scotsmen, are far from interesting to the rest of the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are not interested in the rest of the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am interested.

Major ELLIOT: Nobody could consider the hon. Member fog Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) representative of the rest of the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am representative of myself.

Major ELLIOT: I think this shows there is a danger of the Debate being drawn into fields far away from the Supplementary Estimates, and I hope, therefore, the Committee will be able to see their way to give us this Vote without much further discussion. Although there is an increase in expenditure, it is an increase on objects with which we are in agreement—an increase on the health services and an increase for the production of more houses for the people of Scotland, matters in regard to which we can sink our differences to some extent, as obviously we have been able to do in the course of this Debate.

Mr. STEWART: I think this discussion has disclosed that we Scotsmen can conduct a Debate in a way that is not usual when other people are in the House. We have debated matters in a friendly fashion, and I am sure people from another country who have been present will have recognised that we do not repeat ourselves very frequently, or ask the same question over and over again have some questions to ask which have not been put before. I am rather astonished at the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State with regard to the medical profession, and the implied aspersion that the people of our country have been taking advantage of doctors, sympathetic and otherwise, who did not do their duty. He said the matter was under consideration by various bodies—by themselves, by the medical profession, and by other interested parties—but before saying that he had left the impression on us on this side of the House,
and I daresay on other hon. Members, that the doctors had connived in granting certificates which secured benefits to people who got those certificates—that they connived at a condition of affairs that was not creditable to those who sought the certificates or to the doctors who granted them. We should have been much better pleased if the Under-Secretary had left that statement unsaid until investigation had been made into the truth or otherwise of the allegation.
In regard to the question of steel houses, I have never during these Debates said a single word against steel houses. I saw the first house built by the firm who have been principally under discussion in all the Debates, and from what I saw of the house I was rather favourably impressed with it. Since then I have met those who are connected with the houses. I will give the name of the place, so that inquiries can be made. It is Robroyston, where steel houses were constructed for the accommodation of some of the estate workers. If I remember aright, they were not of the Weir type, but they were steel houses, and I am credibly informed that they showed many faults and that repairs were required. On one week-end when I was on a visit to that place men were working at repairs. In Glasgow, at all events, if not in other parts of the country, necessity has compelled people to occupy these houses, whereas if there had been a plenitude of other houses these would not have been occupied; but despite the fact that they are all occupied, and that if more are built those too will be occupied, the information I get is that they are not giving the satisfaction that Members of the Government claim they have given.
Since the shortage has taken place from year to year, alternative methods of housing have been considered, but there does not seem to have been much progress. During last year, we are told, between 12,000 and 13,000 houses were erected. This is nothing like approaching the requirements of Scotland, even allowing for 1,100 steel houses, for every year the housing conditions are getting worse. As a matter of fact, 20,000 houses are required annually, and in no year yet have we come anywhere near reaching that standard. There is not any part of Scotland where the housing problem is
not growing gradually worse. The steel houses will not fill the bill, and you will have to try some other method of meeting our requirements. I have suggested from time to time methods by which we would be able to supply the required houses rapidly, but they have not been adopted.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has already dealt with the question of maternity benefit. Here I notice you are spending £48,000 extra, including additional expenditure for the provision of food and milk following the stoppage in the coal trade. I am sure there is not an hon. Member on this side or the other side of the House who will grudge the expenditure of £48,000 for milk and food for the children who come under the pro visions of the Act, but I would like to ask, was it spent upon an extra supply of milk and food, or was it due to increased prices? There is not the least doubt that there must have been a greater demand than ever, but I wish to know, was the demand for this extra money caused by the situation arising at the moment, or is it due to the increased prices charged to the Board of Health and the local health authorities? If we had been discussing the annual Estimates instead of Supplementary Estimates, I should have dealt much more fully with the question of maternity benefit and what might have been done, but I think we are entitled to some explanation, and I am sorry it has not been given in the interesting and general informative reply which the Under-Secretary has given.
With regard to the treatment of tuberculosis, here again we are told that the increase is mainly for the payment of grants and additional money due to the increased cost of fuel. I should like to know whether, because of the privation and distress, there has been an increased ease rate and a greater number receiving hospital and sanatorium treatment. If that is so, is this extra money mainly due to the price of coal? With the information before me I cannot see whether this increase is mainly due to the cost of coal or not. I may say that on this side of the Committee we are appreciative of every action taken in this direction in a time of abnormal distress caused by circumstances which we cannot discuss now, and we are all pleased that the Government have been able to do something to
alleviate the ill-health arising from that experience. There is another matter arising out of the proposal made with regard to sickness. The Under-Secretary has spoken of the medical fraternity and the people who participated in that ill-

gotten money to which they had no right, and I am sorry to say that we intend to take a Division because of that statement.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 78.

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[8.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsden, E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Albery, Irving James
Grotrian, H. Brent
Remer, J. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Atholl, Duchess of
Hawke, John Anthony
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Balniel, Lord
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ropner, Major L.


Barrlay-Harvey, C. M.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Berry, Sir George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rye, F. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Walford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Blundell, F. N.
Hills, Major John Walter
Savery, S. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Shaw, Lt.-Col A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Skelton, A. N.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Campbell, E. T.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Storry-Deans, R.


Clayton, G. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cope, Major William
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Couper, J. B.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-
Tinne, J. A.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waddington, R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macintyre, Ian
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Dixey, A. C.
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watts, Dr. T.


Eden, Captain Anthony
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maitland Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Com. C (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ellis, R. G.
Merriman, F. B.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


England, Colonel A.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Withers, John James


Fielden, E. B.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Ford, Sir P. J.
Murchison, Sir C. K.
Womersley, W. J.


Forestier, Walker, Sir L
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Forrest, W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nuttall, Ellis
Wragg, Herbert


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Owen, Major G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Frederick George



Gates, Percy
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Radford, E. A.
Captain Margesson.


Goff, Sir Park
Raine, W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromfield, William
Duncan, C.


Ammon, Charles George
Charleton, H. C.
Dunnico, H.


Barr, J
Clowes, S.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Gardner, J. P.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Gillett, George M.


Broad, F. A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Greenall, T.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Grundy, T. W.
March, S.
Sullivan, J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Viant, S. P.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rose, Frank H.
Westwood, J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley, W.


Kirkwood, D.
Scurr, John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lansbury, George
sexton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lawrence, Susan
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wright, W.


Lawson, John James
Smillie, Robert
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lindley, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherh'the)



Lowth, T.
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mackinder, W.
Stamford, T. W.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £220,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administrations under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): There are just two or three items to which I should like to refer in asking the Committee to approve of this Supplementary Estimate. The first one about which I think I should say a word or two is the sum of £350,000 which is required for sickness and disablement benefit under the National Health Insurance Act, and, in addition to that figure, there is a sum of £13,000 for Wales. Indication has already been given, in considering the last Vote, of matters which have arisen in connection with National Health Insurance owing to heavy and abnormal sickness expenditure, and, as in Scotland, we have found in England and Wales that, during the current financial year, although there has been for the most part no prevalence of any marked epidemic or exceptional outbreak of sickness, there has been a wholly exceptional increase in claims upon certain approved societies, especially in the coal-mining areas; and the same conditions have led to an increased expenditure on drugs, necessitating an extra grant of
£25,000, which the Committee will find under Sub-head H.1.
I may say at once, because certainly the Ministry of Health regard this as a very serious matter, that it is estimated that, after making an allowance for the increased amounts distributed as additional benefits, the claims experience of the approved societies has exceeded that of 1925 by no less than £2,309,000; and it is very significant that the rate of increase and the expansion of sickness benefit was not uniform throughout the country, but that its geographical distribution has corresponded very closely with the incidence of unemployment due to the coal dispute. I only desire to state quite simply to the Committee the figures which have been supplied to me by the Department. It appears that the increase in the requirements for ordinary benefit for the year 1926, over the year 1925, was an actual increase of no less than 9 per cent., but the extent of the increase in expenditure has varied considerably as between different approved societies up and down the country. In one selected group of societies it has actually increased by no less than 20 per cent., and in other societies it has grown very considerably indeed, especially in the mining societies. Up to the beginning of May, the sickness experience of the country, apart from a slight tendency to rise which has been general during the last two or three years, was fairly normal. After that date we have experienced a tremendous rise in the expenditure of the approved societies, just as I have indicated.

Dr. SHIELS: Is it not that there was a considerable amount of destitution in
the mining areas and that many miners had insufficient food? Does not that, apart altogether from the ordinary epidemic curves, prove that there was a great likelihood of excessive sickness in the mining areas?

Sir K. WOOD: The next statement I am going to make is rather a complete answer to that suggestion because, while the expenditure of the approved societies rose in the way I have indicated, after the termination of the dispute the average weekly expenditure of certain of the societies specially affected actually dropped as much as one-third, and in the case of some of the societies, in December last year the average weekly expenditure was less than the corresponding expenditure in December, 1925. I agree that in times of industrial depression one might naturally look for some measure of increased sickness. There are, no doubt, a number of insured persons whose condition borders upon incapacity for work, but who remain at work as long as work is available. When they cannot work, there may be cases where they are properly entitled to a medical certificate of incapacity, but in reviewing the situation in June, the Minister, and I think everyone concerned with the matter, could not escape the conclusion that there were large numbers of insured persons who had succeeded in obtaining medical certificates, although they were not in fact incapable of work within the definition of the National Insurance Act, and this fact has been confirmed by the very large number of eases that were referred to the medical referees. That has been a very high proportion indeed of claimants who, when they were referred to the medical referees, signed off in preference to presenting themselves for examination, and in this Supplementary Estimate there is a sum of an extra £30,000 which was spent in the increased employment of medical referees, because directly we saw this abnormal rise in the increase of sickness expenditure, we got into communication with the medical men of the country and with the approved societies themselves, and they have increased very largely the employment of the regional medical staffs.
Simply as illustrating the abnormal condition, and the reason why we are ask-
ing for this extra Vote, I will tell the Committee that the normal number of people who are referred to the medical referees under the National Insurance Act every year is some 200,000. The approved societies refer these cases to the medical referees. In the period I refer to, from the beginning to the end of the coal stoppage, the societies, largely on their own account, and certainly with the support of my right hon. Friend, were referring at the rate per annum of between 400,000 and 500,000 persons to the medical referees. It is a very astonishing thing that, of those people who were referred, some 40 per cent. signed off in preference to presenting themselves for medical examination, and as for the remainder the examination proved that instead of the usual experience, which was that of the number who actually present themselves to the medical referees some 80 per cent. are found incapable of work, although there were two or three times the number referred it was only found that some 66 per cent. were incapable of work. Therefore, we found this situation, that out of every 100 cases referred to the medical referees in the period referred to, 40 per cent. immediately signed off and did not present themselves for examination, so that there were 60 out of the 100 left to present themselves. Of those 60 it was found that another 20 were not incapable of work. That is a bare recital of the facts which are well known to the approved societies and which have been a source of constant anxiety to all those who have been interested in national insurance work during the last few months.
Undoubtedly it has been a very abnormal period and the resumption of work has had a very marked effect upon the expenditure so far as sickness benefit is concerned. One does not want to refer to the names of societies—I think they are well known to those who are interested in the work—but I have in my hand the names of a number of societies in colliery districts. There is one here with an approximate membership of 880. The number of men on the funds in a week which ended the coal stoppage was 197. The number that declared off during the last fortnight following the termination of the coal stoppage was no less than 132. So I could go on giving these figures. I am
only doing so to account to the House for this very large sum which I am asking for in respect of national insurance expenditure, but also to assure the House that so far as ordinary foresight can see, this is an unforeseen and unfortunate experience so far as national insurance is concerned which I am sure everyone hopes will not be repeated. I do not think anyone could blame the Department or the approved societies or the accountant who is responsible for these figures and the Estimate so far as my Department is concerned during the past year or hold them responsible for the undoubtedly disastrous consequences which followed the recent industrial dispute, and so far as we can judge at the Ministry—we have taken account of this in the Estimate—things are now rapidly approaching the normal and the normal rate of sickness insurance experience will, I hope, soon be reached. Undoubtedly this particular experience has been a very unfortunate one to approved societies, not by any means affecting their stability or security, because that is very strong, but undoubtedly it has had a very serious effect and has been a source of very great anxiety indeed to a very large number of societies up and down the country who have been engaged in national insurance work.
There are other items which are of a more pleasant nature. In this Vote, there is an item which arises in connection with a new dental service, which is for the first time being inaugurated in connection with national insurance. The money is required for the salaries of regional dental officers for the last two months of the present financial year. The Committee may remember that out of the surpluses available for additional benefits, as the result of the second valuation of approved societies, some £2,000,000 had to be reallocated to pay benefits under the additional benefit scheme, and I am glad to say that 6,300 societies are engaged in administering this extra benefit. This dental benefit is one of the most popular additional benefits under the National Insurance Act. The scope of the new service has been agreed upon between a committee representing the approved societies of the country and the dental profession almost with unanimity—I think there was some objection by a very small body—as to the terms and conditions of the service, and
we are asking to-night that the Committee should sanction this new advance, so far as dental treatment is concerned, which I believe will have very far-reaching consequences in improvement in the health of the people.
There is an additional sum of £80,000, which is required for the salaries and wages of the staff employed in the administration of the new pension scheme. Our original Estimate was presented, the late Minister of Health will remember, before the cost of the Act could be fully foreseen. Very many alterations were made in the Measure, and as a consequence of that, and also, undoubtedly, due to the very large additional work which has been thrown upon the staff in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Scheme, we are asking for this additional sum. The scheme has now been in operation for 13 months, and already over 340,000 pensions to widows, orphans and insured persons over 70 years have been granted. If we take children into account, the 340,000 pensions cover over 600,000 people. That represents a very large amount of work and it has made very great demands upon the staff. In addition, as many hon. Members know, we are taking immediate steps in order that within a few months time we may be properly prepared for those pensions which will become payable to over half a million people who, having reached the age of 65, and being between 65 and 70, will be drawing old age pensions under the conditions laid down by this House as far as the Widows, etc., Pensions scheme is concerned. Very rightly, the additional staff has been required to make arrangements for the 1,200,000 people who by the end of next year will be drawing their pensions and allowances under this new scheme. Very few people in this House will grudge the very small amount, if I may so call it, that we are asking for in order that we may be able to cope with the large amount of work which this Act has brought with it.
There is a sum of £100,000 mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate in regard to which it would be wise to say a word, because it is represented as a saving in respect of housing expenditure. I do not want any hon. Member to think that this
means any curtailment as far as the housing programme is concerned. It is purely a matter of account as far as the Addison Act is concerned, and is really in relation to large amounts which have been outstanding for some time in respect of a few local authorities. People who have had experience of housing accounts know that in respect of the Addison scheme it has been a subject for some time of negotiation between various authorities up and down the country, with a view to adjusting the necessary expenditure between the State and the municipalities. In that respect, we are anticipating a saving of £100,000. It does not affect the housing schemes under the Chamberlain Act, as we call it, or the Wheatley Act, but is purely an adjustment of the accounts outstanding in respect of the Addison Act.
To the best of my ability, I will endeavour to answer any questions asked concerning this Supplementary Estimate. But I would emphasise the fact that the extra amount for which we are asking is very largely due, in the first place, to the matter with which I dealt at the beginning of my speech, secondly, to the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and, thirdly, to the inauguration of the new dental service under the National Insurance Act. I hope that the Committee, after putting whatever questions they may desire, will feel that this is a fit and proper Supplementary Estimate, and I shall then ask them to approve of it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I would like to congratulate the hon. Member on his very clear and lucid statement, and to express my own gratitude to him for having left us in no doubt as to the view of the Government regarding the integrity of the medical profession. Until the hon. Member spoke, I had been almost convinced by the temper of the Committee, while discussing these Supplementary Estimates, that we were rapidly qualifying to be held up to the people who are asking for industrial peace as an example of how far we have succeeded in achieving peace in politics. The hon. Member's statement regarding an honourable, honoured and respected profession is not one that can go unchallenged and uncriticised in this
House. It amounts to this, that during the coal stoppage large numbers of the medical profession were guilty of fraud, and that they were aided and abetted in carrying out their fraudulent policy by large masses of the working classes in this country. There is no use in mincing matters. If it be true, as the hon. Member, speaking for the Government, alleges, that the approved societies of this country have been deprived of large sums of money through members of the medical profession granting certificates that were not warranted, then those medical practitioners were guilty of a very gross system of fraud. Now that is not the view of the medical profession that I have learned from experience in life and during my brief experience at the Ministry of Health. I have always been taught to look on the members of that profession as being among the most honourable sections of the community, and I am sure they will read with amazement to-morrow the statement made on behalf of the Government to-day. One wonders if there is any limit to the number of evils that have to be credited to the recent coal dispute. The Garden of Eden has been superseded; original sin is no longer responsible for all the mischief in the world. It all dates back indeed to the 1st May, when the miners of this country entered upon their industrial struggle.
I have no doubt that if the hon. Member pursues his investigation of what has happened to insurance societies during that period in the frame of mind that dominated his utterances in the Committee to-night, he will be able to reveal to us on an early date that Bolshevist influences have been active in the medical profession and that, somehow or other, Mr. A. J. Cook, acting under instructions from Moscow, has set out on a deliberate policy to ruin the approved societies and bring about a social revolution in Great Britain! I leave the Government and the medical profession to settle that for themselves. I have no doubt that the medical profession in this country will find means to clear its character from the imputations—in my opinion the unjust imputations—,hat have been cast upon it to-night by the representative of the Ministry of Health.
The hon. Member referred to other items in the demand which he is now making on the House, and, having given
his statement in support of these, said that he hoped no section of the Committee would grudge the money which his Department desires. I think I can say for this side of the Committee that we do not grudge the money but I want to say that we are surprised that it should be necessary, not merely under one head but under five heads, and year after year, to come to this House with Supplementary Estimates. We are here spending an evening which might have been well spent in discussing the social conditions of the people, but probably to prevent our discussing adequately those conditions, the Government embarrasses this House by keeping most of its time devoted to passing Supplementary Estimates. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh at this statement, but I wonder what they would think of the managers in their own businesses who found it necessary, not merely once, but year after year and ender various headings, to come up and tell them they could not make a reasonably careful estimate of the expenditure for the 12 months. They would not think much of the capacity of such managers.
I know that the hon. Member has a very competent staff at the Ministry of Health, and I am quite sure that he would not give the answer that they could not estimate for him the expenditure of the ensuing l2 months. At any rate, they would not go wrong year after year and under various headings. It might be the case that under one heading such as the administration of the widows' pension scheme, where the work was new, they would find it impossible to estimate accurately their financial requirements. If it was only under that heading that the hon. Member came forward to seek additional money we might not have much to say. But when he comes forward and asks us under the ordinary headings of expenditure, then we can only assume that the Government treats this House very lightly when it makes up its Estimates and comes here and throws them at our head and says, "Well, you can pass this under the strict assurance that before the financial year closes we will take up a considerable amount of our time in granting Supplementary Estimates." I want to protest again to that, and I want to renew my protest against
the attack which has been made on the medical profession.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how he explains the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has given?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the hon. Member does not expect that I am going to explain the financial policy of the Government. I want to revert to the other point. The only evidence in support of this amazing charge is the results of the appeals that were made to the medical referees. The hon. Member pointed out that large numbers of people whose cases have been referred to these referees had been turned down as not being unfit to work, but when the hon. Member has taught us to doubt the honesty of the medical profession, how can he expect us to accept without question the decision of the medical referees? If one section of the medical profession, acting under Bolshevist influences in the mining districts, may grant bogus certificates to please the miners, may not another section of the same dishonest profession, grant medical certificates to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Health? You see, once you have destroyed faith in the honesty and integrity of that profession you have nothing at all to go on, and I hope that the Committee will very largely support the Amendment that I am going to move, namely, that as a protest against the attack on the medical profession, this Vote be reduced by £100.

Mr. GILLETT: I do not want to follow the Parliamentary Secretary very closely in regard to the detailed questions that he has raised as to the reason for asking for this additional amount of money for health insurance and I do not want to debate the question as to whether it is solely entirely due to the recent stoppage. I should like to point out to him that, however far the stoppage may be responsible for the sickness benefit, there is, at any rate, one thing which is constantly going on in this country which is always swelling the amount of sickness and that is the conditions of housing in very many of the crowded centres of our great cities. The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to one item in the figures before us that deals specifically with housing
and he said that we were to understand that the suggested saving, so-called, was not actually a saving because the houses were built and, as I understand him, instead of the amount being paid by the Government, this £100,000 is being paid by the locality. That does not remove us from the point that we in this House have voted a certain sum of money to be used for the purpose of helping in providing further houses. If I agree to what the Minister is now suggesting, it seems to me that I agree to a reduction in the amount. But there is nothing to prevent him spending the money on some other housing scheme.
I cannot say that because some localities have found the money for their needs, there is no reason why this money should not be spent in the centre of London. The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that the housing shortage is being met to some extent, but if the Minister thinks that this £100,000 need not have been used, I would point out to him that, in central London, he and his Department have not touched in the slightest the great need of housing for the people. I do not suggest that the London County Council have not made great efforts, but if the Minister thinks that he and the London County Council have met all that is required and that £100,000 can be handed back now to pay sickness benefit, then I say it is an exceedingly short-sighted policy. I have in mind the housing problem in Finsbury. I think of the men and women who are constantly asking for further accommodation. We are the most crowded district in the whole of London. I asked the Minister, therefore, why it is that this £100,000, if he has it to spare, cannot be allocated for use in Finsbury. The housing shortage is one of the most appalling tragedies in our midst to-day.
It is not only poor people without money who are crowded together. I had a visit recently from a woman whose husband and three sons, young men from 18 to 22 years of age, were all at work. The accommodation available was not sufficient to provide them with decent housing. In spite of the income that was coming into that family, they could not find the accommodation that they required. They might have got it if they
had gone out to some of the London County Council estates, but, as she said, the sum of money that would be taken out of the family income in order to provide the railway fares for the whole of the wage-earners, made the thing impossible. Only two or three days ago I was interviewed by a man whose family are under orders to leave their house because it is required in connection with some improvements. The Finsbury Borough Council have some more housing schemes in hand, but this man informed me that, although he was making £3 to £4 a week, having received this order to quit, he had spent his time in trying to find rooms. That prevented him from earning his living, and he could not find accommodation any where near the place where he is living to-day, and he said that if he removed a great distance his trade was gone.
That is the position in which we are in central London. Then there are the old houses that are crowded with people. The Minister of Health is asking for large sums of money to provide for sickness, but these old and crowded houses are the places in which the greater part of the sickness that the Minister is trying to remedy is being caused. According to a report of the Lone County Council, dated 1919, 50,000 houses were required annually to meet the needs of London. To-day, according to a recent report and a statement in the "Westminster Gazette," that figure, instead of being reduced, is 62,000 houses. That is the position of housing in the County of London. It is the great unsolved problem. I know that the Minister will say—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the hon. Member is now discussing the policy on which the saving has arisen. That will not be in order on this Vote. All that the hon. Member is entitled to do on a Supplementary Estimate of this kind is to ask for information ac to how the sum has been saved.

Mr. GILLETT: I want to ask the Minister why this money has been saved. I suppose I should be in order in asking why he could not spend the money in the way I suggest? I disagree with him in having made any saving whatever. By allowing the conditions of housing which I have described to go on in central
London, he is only adding to his difficulties in regard to sickness benefit. Fie is laying the blame on the coal stoppage, but it ought also to be laid on the housing conditions that we have in London. This is one of the great examples of the benefit of private enterprise.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There, again, the hon. Member is getting back to policy. The question for the Committee to consider is how this money has been saved.

Mr. GILLETT: I do not know how far it is policy. As far as the money is concerned, surely the policy has already been laid down that the Government ought to be spending more money upon helping to provide houses for the working classes. I was trying to suggest that in Finsbury, where we are suffering from too much private enterprise, we would have liked a little more Government enterprise to remove this evil. We find that one of the great landed estates in the centre of London is allowing the houses practically to fall down. If the Minister is not prepared to build houses with this money, why could he not use some of it in order to help to keep in occupation the houses in which families are now living? We understand that the Minister has not been able to use this money because there is not enough labour. Another reason suggested is that the rate of interest is so high as to make an additional charge upon all the houses that are provided. When the Minister has money to use for housing purposes, I ask him to consider whether it is not possible to use it in order to keep in existence some of the houses that are now occupied. In the centre of London you find these houses which have been used as dwelling houses, now empty or let for business purposes. I am convinced that if we really want to cut at the root of much of the sickness in our midst to-day we must tackle the housing question properly. The problem of central London is still left untouched. It is one of the abominations in our midst to-day, and no word that can be used in this House could be too strong to describe the condition of the people in the centre of London. People are herded together worse than horses or cattle.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must again ask the hon. Member to keep to the question that is before the Committee.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order. I would direct your attention to a paragragh on page 536 of "Erskine May," which deals with this point. I submit that the hon. Member is entitled to discuss policy, because policy is distinctly raised by the Estimate before us. The paragraph says:
Debate on supplementary and excess grants is restricted to the particulars contained in the Estimates on which those grants are sought, and to the application of the items which compose those grants; and the debate cannot touch the policy or the expenditure sanctioned, on other heads, by the estimate on which the original grant was obtained, except so far as such policy or expenditure is brought before the Committee by the items contained in the Supplementary or Excess Estimates.
I submit that the point which my hon. Friend raises is covered by the Estimate before us.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This particular item deals with a saving, and it has been frequently ruled by my predecessors in the Chair that on an item of that kind the merits of the policy which has resulted in the saving should not be discussed. The only question which arises is how the money has been saved.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not in order to discuss whether or not the saving is a legitimate one and whether the money should not have been expended?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was discussing the merits of the policy by which the money was saved, and to do so is not in order in this Debate.

Mr. GILLETT: I suggest, Sir, that I am in order in raising this point because this money was to be used for private houses, and what I have been trying to point out is that the money has been saved by withholding it from the locality in which I am interested and in which it is so badly needed. Had the Minister let us have this sum of £100,000 in Finsbury it could have been utilised to advantage. I do not wish, however, to infringe your ruling, Sir. I have done what I wanted to do, namely, to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that if he really desires to assist the sick benefit societies the most effective way of doing so is to press on with the improvement
of housing conditions. The hon. Gentleman knows the Borough of Finsbury. At one time he was anxious to represent a part of it in the House of Commons. The people of Finsbury never had the opportunity of saying whether they would have been favoured by his presence in the House as their representative or not. Judging by their views to-day, I imagine he would not be acceptable to them. At any rate I press upon him the needs of this district in which he was interested, and I hope when next he has a sum of £100,000 to spare he will do something with it towards removing what is a standing disgrace to our civilisation.

Miss WILKINSON: Referring to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary regarding the increased sickness in the mining areas, as indicated by the Estimate, I desire to call his attention to certain statements which he made during the coal dispute. It is a very narrow kind of satisfaction to say, "I told you so." But I think, following on the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary this evening, Members on this side can truly point out that during the whole of that dispute we claimed that the Government policy was causing increased sickness and destitution which would be reflected in the Ministry of Health figures when they became available. We were then told by the Minister himself, and by the Parliamentary Secretary, that there was no malnutrition; that as a matter of fact people in the mining areas were better fed, in better health, and better off generally, than they had ever been before. Those of us who had been through the mining areas, people like myself—I presided over a miners' relief committee—knew that the statements made from the Government benches regarding conditions in the mining areas were false and bore no relation whatever to the actual facts of the case. But all the Government spokesmen were concerned with was comforting the public. When they were issuing circular after circular to cut down relief, they were, as a matter of fact condemning large numbers of people in the mining areas to ill-health and excessive sickness and that is shown in the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has placed before us to-night.
Some of us have bitter memories of the letter which the Prime Minister himself
sent to America stating that there was no distress in the mining areas. I wish the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to-night could be given as wide publicity in the American Press as that letter received, so as to give the lie to the Premier's own statement at that time. It is always most difficult to get out the truth and to follow up an untruth, but that is what these figures do. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that men who were capable of work did not sign on so long as work was available, but that when work was no longer available they went on to the Health Insurance. That statement bears out what we have always said about the conditions in those areas. The men will go on working until they drop because they do not want their families to suffer, but when malnutrition is added to their other difficulties, of course they have, to sign on to the Health Insurance Fund. I would recall to the Parliamentary Secretary, who seems to find so much to smile at in my statement, what the facts are, and I wish he would face the facts which his own actions have brought about among these unfortunate people. All this seems to he a matter for amusement for people who have never gone into the mining areas and who merely see figures which are explained away comfortingly by the Parliamentary Secretary.
What did the Minister's own Circular do? Steadily throughout that dispute the Ministry of Health Circulars concentrated on preventing relief of any kind getting to able-bodied men, and not only to able-bodied men, but even to pit lads. We had case after case where the only person in the household who was able to claim relief was the mother. She was getting her 10s. and she might have three or four grown-up sons and a husband. Where were they to get food? The whole family was trying to live on a miserable pittance that would scarcely have kept the woman herself, and then the Ministry's representative comes here, and, although the effect of their own policy has been to cause excessive sickness, he has nothing better to do than to libel the medical profession. I am sorry that these statements seem to cause so much amusement on the other side. We had cases in Scotland where, in order to prevent men or pit boys sharing in any relief which might be given to the mothers and the younger children, these
mothers and children were gathered to the schools and fed in public halls, in order that the fathers should not share in the food that was given them. The result of that is that the man, because of ill nourishment, has to go to his panel doctor and then the representative of the Ministry tries to explain away these figures on some utterly irrelevant issue. The Women's Relief Committee had to send some of these pit lads abroad in order to get homes for them. The pit lads had to be sent out of this country altogether in order that they might get food. Had they remained at home, they would have had to go on to the sick fund and swell still further the figures which have been given us.
The Ministry of Health try to excuse the fact by saying that the men did not actually go up for medical inspection. Those who know the mining areas better than hon. Members on the other side of the House know the amount of pressure that was brought to bear on the doctors to prevent them putting anyone on the fund they could possibly keep off. The result of mal-nutrition, and the ill-health caused by it, is not a disease which a doctor can cure by administering a pill. It is food not medicine that is needed, and the Ministry of Health say that these people have no right to be on the National Health Insurance Fund. The statement of the Parliamentary Secretary this evening is the most appalling condemnation of the whole policy of the Ministry of Health throughout the mining dispute. No fact could have borne out more distinctly what we said during the whole of the Poor Law Debates and the insurance Debates and the Debates on the mining dispute than the figures which the Ministry of Health has now put before us, and for the Parliamentary Secretary to try and explain them away, these figures, the result of his own policy, by saying that the doctors put on the fund people who ought not to have been put on is not only a libel on the medical profession, but an insult to the intelligence of this Committee. The doctors at any rate hehaved like decent citizens and as men with some humanity. They tried to get food for these unfortunate men whom the Ministry of Health tried to starve. It is the greatest compliment that can be paid to the medical profession to say that, rather than put up with
official Regulations, rather than starve these men, they did their best to get them some food. I say that the figures which have been given to the Committee this evening—it is no laughing matter in spite of the amusement of the Parliamentary Secretary—condemn the policy of the Department and they also condemn the Prime Minister, who could send that letter to America with all its falsehoods saying that there was no distress in the mining areas.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: It is rather an unusal experience, but a very pleasant one, to hear my own profession so belauded as it has been to-night from the benches of the Labour party. My own experience is that we have not received many compliments from hon. Members opposite. But to-night we have had the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) applauding the honour and kindness of the medical profession and honouring that profession to the extent of proposing a reduction of the Vote on account of the numerous shortcomings of the Department. The hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has handed many bouquets to my profession, and I feel rather overcome. But her compliments were rather of a backhanded nature, because, as far as I understood her argument, she said that the medical men had been more kind and charitable than the Department and had put these men on medical benefit when they ought not to have been put there. That they were, in fact, doing a dishonest act; that they were men of dishonour. Mal-nutrition is not a disease for which a medical benefit can be given. If a doctor puts on a medical certificate that the person is suffering from disability or mal-nutrition, the approved society would not accept that certificate.
10.0 p.m.
The question which has been raised by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening opens up a very wide subject and has brought to the front one of the inherent defects of the National Insurance Act which we recognised from the beginning was bound to come up some time. His statement as to the great increase in medical benefit, which coincided with the coal stoppage, shows or rather is implication, that a certain number of men, an extra number of men, went on medical benefit either because they were not
genuinely sick or because doctors were lenient in giving them certificates. That is a most serious implication against my profession and one which ought to be most carefully examined. Doctors are human beings like their patients. They have their hopes and desires, they have their anxieties too, and while in practice they are anxious not to offend their patients unnecessarily. There are one or two points, however, which strike me very forcibly, to which we ought to address ourselves and see if we can find some explanation. One very funny occurrence was that as soon as the coal stoppage was over there was a sudden drop in benefits. If the hon. Lady the Member for Middlesbrough is right, that a great amount of the sickness was due to starvation or mal-nutrition, one would not expect that as soon as the stoppage was over, these people would suddenly recover their health and strength and go back to work. There was not sufficient time for them to regain their health. That is rather an awkward circumstance.
Another point that is suspicious is that the approved societies sent a larger number of cases to the medical referees, 100 per cent. more than the average. That leads to the suspicion that the approved societies thought that some of these people were not genuinely ill and that they ought not to have a certificate. There is no other way of accounting for that sudden increase in the number. The approved societies must have been suspicious that there were some cases which were not properly entitled to medical benefit. And a very suspicious sign also is this, that 40 per cent. of those who ought to have gone to the medical referees suddenly decided to sign off. If they were genuinely sick and entitled to benefit they would be only too pleased to go to the referee and obtain his corroboration of the genuineness of their case, and the fact that 40 per cent. suddenly decided not to go before the referee gives rise to the suspicion that they were not genuine cases.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask you a question? Did you sign any certificate when you had any doubt about the case?

Dr. DAVIES: I will explain to the hon. Member. When I was in practice we
were up against this great difficulty in national health insurance. A patient would have an accident or some illness, a genuine illness like pneumonia or acute rheumatism, and after a certain time, from the medical point of view, that person had recovered except for a certain amount of weakness. They were not quite up to their usual and normal strength. One of the peculiarities of the Insurance Act is that a person can do no work or he can do full work. They cannot do part work. You cannot say that a person is suffering from debility, you must give a definite disease. The result was that very often I thought the patient was well enough to do light work, but the patient said, "I really have not the strength to do the amount of work I have to do," and I had to take his word. And so the case comes to this, that the panel doctor is practically in the hands of his patient. If the patient says, "I am not strong enough to do a certain thing," the doctor cannot say that he is. He may have a strong suspicion, but if he tells the patient, "It does not matter whether you are strong enough or not. I will sign you off," the patient goes away and tells all his friends: "Dr. So-and-so signed me off. He is a brute. Don't you ever go to him." That is reported around the district, and the doctor may lose ten, twenty, fifty or a hundred panel patients.
At the present time the doctor has to please his panel patients if he wants to keep his panel practice, and that is the particular dfficulty. If the doctor wants to be absolutely honest to his own conscience, he has to run the risk of offending patients and losing his practice. In all cases there is a certain element of doubt. Hon. Members will see that this is the difficulty of the doctor in this matter of National Health Insurance. It is very difficult for a doctor to prove whether a man is fit to work. Supposing a man says, "I have a pain in my back." you examine him carefully and you say, "I cannot find any pain, although you tell me you have a pain." The patient says, "No, but I feel the pain." What are you going to do in that case?
So, although I think the doctors perhaps are under a little suspicion and perhaps have been a little too lenient and have not exercised sufficient care in sending patients back to work, I think the
main result that we arrive at from the Estimate that the Under-Secretary is bringing forward is this. That a certain number of people, be they large or small, finding they were locked out and finding that they could not get relief from the Poor Law, suddenly remembered that there was such a thing as a panel doctor, and if they had a cough or a cold they could legitimately get medical benefit. Having got on the list they took good care that they did not get off until they were absolutely fit and well and strong. That perhaps is human nature. So long as you have national health insurance on its present basis, you will have that difficulty to face—the man who is anxious to get benefit and the doctor in the awkward position of having to decide whether the patient is ill or well. The result is that the morale of the patient and of the doctor in some cases is sapped, and we get what we have had to-night, a huge increase in the medical benefit, suddenly increasing with the coal stoppage, suddenly decreasing when the coal stoppage is over, and leaving an uneasy suspicion in the minds of many people that things are not as they ought to be.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The debate so far has been extremely interesting and I want, if I may, to clear up a doubt that is in the mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Royton (Dr. Vernon Davies). Those of us who have something to do with National Health Insurance know full well that the doctors are doing their work very well indeed in connection with the panel practice. I think it would be a mistake, however, if we did not realise that there are good doctors and bad ones. If one per cent. of the panel doctors issued certificates in a loose way that would be sufficient to account for all the money we are discussing. Some people blame the doctors; others the approved societies. I would like to go beyond those two classes and say that if anybody is to be blamed it must be the Government. Our difficulties in connection with this problem arise from the passage last year of what is called the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Some of us predicted at that time that the Government's action in taking away part of the State grant towards the funds of the approved societies would undoubtedly
shake the foundations of the societies as a whole. It has not actually done that yet; but it has had a very serious effect upon the finances of the approved societies, as witnessed by what the Under-Secretary has -already told us. I would like to correct the Parliamentary Secretary in one statement that he made. He compared what was happening now in the approved societies by way of payment of benefits with what transpired during the coal stoppage. He will find that during the last fortnight benefit payments from approved societies in this country, owing to the epidemic of influenza, will probably be as high if not higher than anything witnessed during the coal dispute. That is the experience of some of the approved societies, at any rate.
I should be very sorry indeed if national health insurance became the subject of political party warfare. I want to keep it clear of that and to place it on a sound financial and financial actuarial basis. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to be good enough to reply to a few questions which I shall put to him. He has a sum down in the Estimates of £800 in respect of regional dental officers. I was always under the impression that more than one were appointed to this staff. If eight or nine have been appointed, how comes it about that we have only £800 here? I would like to know from him what are the conditions under which these gentlemen are employed.
There is another point in connection with the administration of National Health Insurance which comes under our purview this evening, and it is this: The dental profession, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, has gained considerably from the scheme which has been adopted recently whereby dental benefit is paid as an additional benefit by most of the approved societies. If an approved society is not in a position to pay the full cost of treatment in connection with dental benefit, will the Ministry allow the society to pay, say, 50 or 75 per cent. instead of crippling their funds by being called upon to pay the 100 per cent.? Again, how many approved societies, and what is the membership covered by them, have declined to operate up to now the scheme of additional benefit in respect to dental treatment and
dentures? I understand that some of the societies, in Lancashire in particular, have thought fit to decline to carry out the Ministry's Regulations in this connection, and it would be interesting to know the exact position at the moment.
I do not know whether this point will be new to the hon. Gentleman, but I trust he will be able to give us some explanation as to what is going to happen on this, perhaps, a rather small point, but a very important one to the individuals concerned. On the passage of the Widows Pensions Act we never foresaw everything that would transpire as a consequence of its passing. In practice, in the administration of this new scheme, plus the National Health Insurance Act, we find this happening. It is rather a technical point, but I hope the hon. Member will follow me. An insured person who was a voluntary contributor becomes compulsorily insured for, say, a period of 20 weeks. Strangely enough, that compulsory insured person cannot now become a voluntarily insured person although he was once a voluntary contributor, merely by virtue of the fact that he has not the necessary number of contributions to his credit under the Widows' Pensions Act. The result is that one provision of the Widows' Pension Act has actually torpedoed a provision of the National Health Insurance Act. We understand the present Government to be the Government of all the talents, and I should have thought that, whatever we on this side missed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health would certainly have foreseen an anomaly of that kind. In any case, the position is unfair to the class of person that I mentioned, and I trust he will be able to do something to meet the complaints that are met with on all hands in that connection.
We are asked to-night also to pass a Supplementary Estimate in connection with the inspectorial staff. I was under the impression that the Government, in their economy proposals, had intended to carry out before now some arrangement whereby the inspectors under the National Health Insurance Act would undertake work in connection with the Unemployment Insurance and the Widows' Pensions Acts. I would like to know whether the Government have done
anything at all to co-ordinate the work of the inspectors in connection with these three State schemes, and thereby reduce the expenses.
I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to one statement that he made. When he informed the Committee to-night that the coal dispute was responsible for an increase of £2,309,000 in the cost over the previous similar period, he did not say if there were more persons eligible for benefit in the latter period than in the former. If so, that accounts for a great deal. Further, I would ask whether some of the societies which paid benefits to these people in 1926 were not only paying more benefit, but that the rate had been increased in some cases over 1925, which would account automatically for the increase in the total sum paid. It is grossly unfair for example to say that in 1925 1,000,000 people at £1 each received £1,000,000, because the benefit was £1 a week, whereas, in fact. in 1926, the rate of benefit may have been increased by 5s. a week. It would be wrong to say that the 1926 benefits were in that case greater than the 1925 benefits.
He has told us also about the mining areas, but he has not divided the sum of the increased benefit as between men and women, and it would be very interesting to know what is the proportionate increase in 1926 as compared with 1925 as between men and women. The experience of the society with which I have something to do is to the effect that the increase is not as great in respect of the men as the women; and if the case all over the country is as I have seen it within my own sphere, then I think the argument of the hon. Gentleman falls to the ground in part, at any rate.
There is one other point. When we are told of the number of persons who were sent to the regional medical officers, and of the percentage that did not turn up, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say it does not follow that if a society sends an indivdiual to the regional medical officer for a second examination and he fails to turn up, the man is therefore fit for work. In fact, a large number of insured persons decline to go a second time for reasons other than their fitness for work. They dislike going there in the same way as the man
serving in the army and injured in the War declines to go before a medical board. He has reasons of his own for not going.
Let me say my final word on this problem. As I said at the commencement, I hope that national health insurance will emerge clean out of party political discussions. We want a scheme based on financial and actuarial calculations, so that the societies will know from one year to the other exactly where they stand. The approved societies of this country know full well the reasons for the increased cost of benefits. We feel certain that, when unemployment is rife, the societies, for some reason or other, feel the result of that unemployment. There is no doubt about that. Whether it be from mal-nutrition, Or for any other reason, that is the case. Ii ought to be made quite clear to those Members who are interested, that the approved society by Act of Parliament is not called upon to pay benefit on any medical certificate. It rests with the approved society and not with the doctor as to whether or not benefit shall be paid.
As I said, this work is being carried on under great difficulties. The difficulties last year were enormous, consequent upon the coal dispute, the general strike, and the general destitution which prevailed throughout the land. I am hoping, as I have said, to see this scheme going on without being torpedoed in any way by party political strife, nor affected in the future, as it was in 1926, by taking from the funds of the societies sums of money upon which they had built their future.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I think I had better reply, in the first place, to a few of the questions which have been put by the hon. Gentleman. Let me say, in the first place, with regard to the particular case which the hon. Gentleman mentioned of the insured person who became first a voluntary contributor and then became a compulsorily insured person, think he is right in the facts, but I would like to look at the matter further, and communicate with my hon. Friend if I have further observations to make. If hon. Members will do me the honour to peruse the statement which I made on the serious part of the
Estimate concerning excessive sickness claims, they will see that I made no condemnation of the approved societies or anybody else. My duty in connection with this Vote was simply to state the facts. I have had to come to the Committee for a sum of no less than £350,000, and I endeavoured to account for the wholly exceptional experience of approved societies, which I believe they are not likely to undergo again. As regards the figures, I am very glad the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) who, I suppose, speaks with more experience than anybody in this House, because he is intimately connected with a very large approved society, has not seriously contested any of the statements I made to-night. Let me tell him, as regards the comparison between the figures of 1925 and 1926, that there has been no appreciable increase in the numbers at all. As regards the question of additional benefits, he was quite right. I should have been deceiving the House if I had not taken into account the additional cash benefits which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, became payable in 1926. Of course, I have taken that fact into account. The £2,000,000 which the approved societies have to pay above the figures of last year and 1925 takes fully into account the amount of additional benefits that have to be paid.
As reference has been made to the position of the medical profession, it is only right that I should state that they themselves took action in this matter. It is not a matter which has escaped the notice either of the approved societies or the medical profession. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health communicated in July with the appropriate authority, and in October the National Insurance Commissioner who, as my hon. Friend knows well, is one of the most experienced officers in the service, attended a representative conference and put the whole of the facts before the medical men chiefly affected. I have here a copy of the resolution, because I was, not unnaturally, prepared for the very obvious reply that I was attacking the medical profession and putting on to them something which I ought not to. A very significant resolution was passed by the conference of local medical and panel
committee practitioners, which is the authoritative body in this matter:
That the Insurance Acts Committee be asked to consider what practical steps can he taken to meet the difficulties raised by Sir Walter Kinnear, and that meantime the representatives pledge themselves to use their influence locally in endeavouring to secure strict adherence to the principles governing certification for the purpose of the National Health Insurance Act.
Therefore, I hope that no hon. Member will go away with the impression that I have overstated the case. This case is very well known to the approved societies and medical men, and I hope no one will go away with the impression that medical men themselves are not alive to the evils which resulted from the state of affairs I have indicated. I support—naturally anyone would—the account given by an hon. Member opposite of the difficulties of medical men confronted with the situation which existed in the mining areas; but in the interest of national insurance itself and of the other contributors would emphasize that when you have a national insurance system based upon benefits being paid when members are incapable of work, that however sympathetic you may feel, rightly or wrongly, to the person who presents himself, directly you do away with that fundamental test then away goes the whole of the financial position of national insurance. Unfortunately that is an aspect which has to be seriously considered.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would make it clear what proportion of the £2,000,000 increase in 1926 is due to an increased rate and not increased benefits.

Sir K. WOOD: The whole £2,000,000 is entirely due to increased benefits paid, after additional benefits have been taken into account. The figures are the actual figures of the excess paid for sickness over and above additional benefits. An hon. Member has put a question to me about the medical service. May I say that we have appointed some seven or eight new dental regional officers. This Estimate only covers two months of the period. The chief dental officer will receive a salary of £1,100, and the others £900 a year, and I think these sums are moderate and quite adequate having regard to the duties.
The hon. Member asked me what would happen if a society had not enough to pay 100 per cent. of the treatment. In that case we should have to reduce the percentage to 75 or 80 per cent. I have been asked to give the number of societies which do not come within this scheme. May I point out that we have set up a Committee on which approved societies, trade unions, and other types of societies are represented. May I also point out that as far as we know at present only about 3 to 5 per cent. of this very vast number of insured persons are not actually in the scheme, and I have not the slightest doubt that with good will even this small number will come in and help us to work what I think is a very necessary and desirable scheme.
I have only one further observation to make, and it is with reference to the item of £100,000 for housing. The Addison Act has been in operation some time, and we found that we had to make adjustments with various local authorities. The accounts connected with the 1919 Act stand alone and the money in question was entirely for the purposes of the 1919 Act. Therefore I hope no hon. Member will go away with the impression that it is any question of money that is holding up housing in any part of the country. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) is a member of the London County Council and he knows that, so far as money is concerned in connection with house building in London, that has never been a difficulty. I remember reading reports of the London County Council concerned with housing, and I know that they have actually voted more money than could be expended so far as housing was concerned. Therefore., if this £100,000 were available, it would not help so far as the situation in London is concerned—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman goes into that, it will open the way to a lot more speeches on the same subject.

Sir K. WOOD: I only just wanted to reply. I will deal with that by saying, in the first place, that the £100,000 arose entirely under the 1919 Act, and, in the second place, that I do not think that is it a question of money that is stopping building so far as London is concerned.
I hope the Committee will at any rate agree that to the best of my ability L have endeavoured to answer, as fully and completely as I can, the questions put to me, and that they will, as soon as possible, permit me to have this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. HARRIS: We have had an innovation in our Debates this evening—we have had a Minister cross-examining a private Member who hesitated to intervene in this discussion. I am challenged, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman. I want to know who are these two mysterious authorities who find that housing is so unnecessary that they would not have to spend the money which they have had an opportunity of getting from the Ministry of Health. We ought to know where these two unique places are. They may be at bright seaside spots, where there is no overcrowding. I do not want to go outside your ruling, Sir, but I think we are entitled to know, as the Ministry of Health have mentioned these two local authorities, where they are, what are their names, and how they achieve this remarkable result. There is money in the coffers of the Ministry, they have the right to spend it, it has been voted by Parliament, and yet there is so little overcrowding, there are so few slums there, that they have allowed the money to go by. I think we ought to have that information before we pass this Vote.
This is one of the most remarkable evenings that we have had. An hon. Member of the House of Commons, who belongs to a very noble profession, who has had practical experience of administering this Act of Parliament, has come down and told us in all seriousness that the administration of this Act is open to grave abuses. I hope that when he reads his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will repent. If not, it ought to be sent to the British Medical Association to ask if they confirm the statement that, in order to keep their patients on their panel, they are inclined to be lax in their administration, to pass many patients when they cannot exactly diagnose their disease, and to put them on the panel, and give them the right to dip into the funds of the approved societies.

Dr. V. DAVIES: On a point of Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is reading
very much more into my remarks than I intended, and I would advise him, too, to read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

Mr. HARRIS: It is within the recollection of members of the Committee who heard the speech. It was certainly a revelation to me. I was surprised, and I do think that that kind of statement is thoroughly mischievous, and that it is not likely to inspire confidence in the members of these various societies if they are to believe that the medical profession cannot diagnose, or dare not diagnose—for that was really what it amounted to—the complaints of their patients properly, because they are afraid that they will no longer remain their doctors.

Dr. DAVIES: On a further point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is misstating absolutely what I said. I never made such an accusation at all.

Mr. HARRIS: I am glad to have that denied. if the hon. Member withdraws the statement, or suggests to the Committee that that was not in his mind, I shall have achieved something in intervening. What we have to believe, and what is really necessary for the health of the country, is that this is a great profession, and that the country can trust them, that they can be relied upon to carry out the terms of the National Health Insurance Act. Owing to the fact that the doctor is paid, not by the visit, but by the patient, there is no inducement to him to keep a patient on the sick list, since the fact that he is on the sick list means no necessary additional medical advantage to him. The figures are puzzling, but it is a very serious thing to allege that advantage is taken of the chance of getting this small benefit to get put on medical benefit. The great bulk of the working classes are members of friendly societies and value them, take pride in their good administration, and on the whole are very anxious that they should be on a financial basis which will enable them in the future to get full benefit. Nothing has been more remarkable than the pride and esprit de corps that exists in all these friendly societies. No one knows it better than the Parliamentary Secretary.

Sir K. WOOD: These are not Friendly Societies. They are Approved Societies.

Mr. HARRIS: The Approved Societies are associated with the great Friendly Societies. If there are a large number of persons drawing benefit the members of a society suffer accordingly. It is perfectly correct to say that. The money is not only found by the State but by the various Approved Societies, who are associated with the various Friendly Societies that existed before the passing of the Act. It is very unfortunate that for the second year we get these attacks on the whole principle of Health Insurance. In its origin the party opposite were against Health Insurance and everything it stood for. Last year we had an inroad into the founds in order to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This year we have the Parliamentary Secretary trying to make out that advantage is taken of the existence of this fund to help men out of a great difficulty when there is a great trade dispute. Insinuations of that kind should not be made unless there is clear evidence to justify them and the Minister is prepared to defend those statements at the box, but when he is challenged he is inclined to climb down and assure the House that he did not wish to make insinuations of that character. It is very unfortunate. I hope there will be some inquiry into the matter and we have not heard the last of it.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The discussion on this Estimate has been concentrated to a very large extent upon the somewhat unfortunate condemnation of the medical profession by the Parliamentary Secretary. There are two points to which I wish to refer. The first is one on which I congratulate the Government. There is to be a saving of £12,000 on the demonstration houses. Of all the ill-starred ventures of an ill-starred Government this is perhaps the worst. We were told early in the day that they were going to solve the great housing problem by setting up in all the towns of this country an object lesson in houses built by alternative methods. A sum of money was set aside for the purpose of giving a very substantial subsidy to houses built by alternative methods. There never was a more miserable fiasco. The local authorities of the country almost without exception rejected the idea of housing their inhabitants by what were called alternative houses, and the result has been not
that the Government has merely escaped the responsibility of paying subsidies on hundreds of thousands of steel houses that were to be built, but that it has not even been able to spend the money that it set aside on the demonstration houses. What it means, in effect, is that this great plan of the Government for providing large numbers of small tin houses for the masses of the people has been rejected by the local authorities of the country, most of whom are authorities where the predominant parties share the views of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am glad to think that His Majesty's Government have, against their will, saved £12,000 this year by not providing demonstration houses.
A second point the enormous increase in the expenditure on health insurance benefit. The Government, as usual, are trying to have it both ways. The Parliamentary Secretary solemnly declares that this enormous increase in the amount of sickness least Year was due to the big industrial stoppage. My mind goes back to the monstrous letter sent by the Prime Minister to the American public, in which he declared that all was well in this country, that the people were happier and healthier than ever they had been before, and that it was grossly untrue to suggest that there was the slightest form of hardship amongst the people in the coalfields. Time after time in this House, when we accused the Government, by its own policy, of undermining the health, physique and vigour of the people of this country, we were told by the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary, who has moved this Estimate, that those charges were utterly untrue, that there was no child, no mother, no father who was in any way suffering as a consequence of this prolonged industrial stoppage. We were led to believe that the coalfields were populated by rosy-cheeked children, by healthy mothers and vigorous fathers. Now, we are told that as. a result of the wickedness of the Miners' Federation the charge upon the State for increased sickness, disablement and maternity benefit is £350,000.
The Government may have it one way, but they are not entitled to have it both ways. A few months ago they were prepared to swear with their hands on their bosoms, that the people of this country were as healthy as ever they have been,
that there was no hardship in the coalfields, that nobody was going short, that there was no privation, and that the general physical vigour and health of the people was as good as, if not better than, before. Now, we are asked to agree to a Supplementary Estimate including the figure of £350,000, the reason for which, so we are told, is that because of this great stoppage, the health of the people was impaired and an increasing number of people came upon the health insurance fund. I am not satisfied with that reason, in view of the statement of the Government last year. One of the two explanations must be wrong. I have said in this House that the health and vigour of the people was being impaired by the policy of the Government, but that idea was rejected by the Government. They have no right in trying to excuse this increased Supplementary Estimate to take the arguments which I used in this House last year, and attempt to use them against my hon. Friends.
I am prepared to believe that this enormous toll of sickness and disease for which payment has had to be made and for which the Supplementary Estimate is asked, is in large measure due to the policy of the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary in encouraging boards of guardians to reduce the amount of out-relief and in a considerable cumber of cases in imposing lower rates of out-relief upon boards of guardians in the mining areas. The result of this policy of the Government has been to leave them with a bill for £350,000 to be paid as a Supplementary Estimate, and I say that the Government are deserving of the strongest possible condemnation. They have by their policy during the past 12 months deliberately taken away from those who were affected by the dispute the means to maintain them in decent physical condition, and they now attempt, directly and indirectly, to blame a body of men in this country for the fact that we are having to find to-night £350,000 as a Supplementary Estimate because of the disease and disability incurred by the policy of His Majesty's Government. I say that for that reason alone we on this side of the Committee are entitled to force this question to a Division.
There are many items in these Supplementary Estimates to which reasonable objection could be taken, but I think
there is no item which merits graver disapprobation than this enormous increase of sickness during the past year, a volume of sickness which, frankly, I did not anticipate would be so large, and which is large enough to involve the State in a substantial additional expenditure, the responsibility for which lies at the door of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. TOWNEND: I have been trying to secure an opportunity of congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary all the evening. I want to congratulate him on that item to which he referred, namely, the dental side of the Estimate. But I am sorry to say that is about the only thing on which I can congratulate him. The first point to which I want to draw his attention is the statement that he has made, because after all while it is quite true he made no definite charge against the medical profession, it was a case of not hesitating to wound while fearing to strike. When he says that all he did was to state the facts, surely he knows that he left behind in that statement of fact an implication that the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Vernon Davies) did not hesitate to take to his own heart, though he made an endeavour to put up a defence on behalf of the Ministry, which certainly will not enable his profession to congratulate him upon when they read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. He was too late in his denial of the charge made as regards the medical fraternity in the exercise of their responsibilities. The Parliamentary Secretary certainly made a charge, when dealing with panel patients, that sometimes they were very lenient, so lenient and to such an extent that patients on their panel could sometimes receive a certificate because, if they did not—to almost use his exact words—they go straight from one surgery and say to other men on the panel, "There is So-and-So, who has signed me off." and as a result the man's income would be very seriously affected by their withdrawing their name from the panel.
When the Parliamentary Secretary made his statement, he whittled down that 500,000, more than double the normal number of 200,000 who usually claim benefit, and the increase to 500,000 and the reduction by 40 per cent. of those who sign on and the further 100,000 whom he referred to and who refused to go before the referee. It was a wonderful
way in which he made a reference implying not quite honestly to the panel patients. It was not a question of their desiring to take advantage of the benefits under the Act, but whether or not they were suffering disabilities. Anyone who has knowledge of the working men of this country knows that after a stoppage of something like seven months, with a bare pantry and most of their furniture gone, despite the disadvantages of ill-health and the disabilities attaching to malnutrition, those men were only too ready to go back once again to even the sparse wage that was far better than the benefit given under the Act. The explanation is quite simple. The Parliamentary Secretary not only suggested and implied dishonesty on the part of the medical profession, but he suggested that the members of it were ready to enter

into a conspiracy with their patients, and that it was a question of the patient having to go before the medical referee for fear of being discovered, and sent back by him to sign on—surely a most unfair and ungallant suggestion on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that when he next has occasion to submit an Estimate to the House, he will find sounder reasons and reasons which do not reflect upon the honesty of a very honourable profession or upon the fair-mindedness of the average working man.

Sir K. WOOD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 79.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacIntyre, Ian


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McLean, Major A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fielden, E. B.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ford, Sir P. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Apsley, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Forrest, W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D Steel-


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, F. B


Balniel, Lord
Gates, Percy
Meyer, Sir Frank


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Murchison, Sir C. K.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Blindell, F. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Brass, Captain W.
Halt, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)
Penny, Frederick George


Briscoe, Richard George
Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hawke, John Anthony
Radford, E. A.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Remer, J. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Clayton, G. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Couper, J. B.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rye, F. G.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Salmon, Major I.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jacob, A. E.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Skelton, A. N.


Ellis, R. G.
Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


England, Colonel A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Smithers, Waldron
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tinne, J. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Withers, John James


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waddington, R.
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Storry-Deans, R.
Watts, Dr. T.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wells, S. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wragn, Herbert


Styles, Captain H. Walter
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Thom, Lt.-Col. J. P. (Dumbarton)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ammon, Charles George
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, W.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hirst, G. H,
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Sexton, James
Charles Edwards.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £219,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 187.

Division No. 15.]
AYES
[11.8 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ammon, Charles George
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Windsor, Walter


Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.



Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ramsden, E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Goff, Sir Park
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Albery, Irving James
Gower, Sir Robert
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Apsley, Lord
Grotrian, H. Brent
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Apsley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Atholl, Duchess of
Hall, Capt W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hammersley, S. S.
Ropner, Major L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balniel, Lord
Hawke, John Anthony
Rye, F. G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Salmon, Major I.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Betterton, Henry B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandon, Lord


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Blundell, F. H.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh' by)
Savery, S. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hills, Major John Waller
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)


Brass, Captain W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Skelton, A. N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Smithers, Waldron


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Campbell, E. T.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Carver, Major W. H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Clayton, G. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Little, Dr. E. Graham
styles, Captain H. Walter


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-
Thom, Lt-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
MacIntyre, Ian
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
McLean, Major A.
Tinne, J. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Waddington, R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, F. B.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ellis, R. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


England, Colonel A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Everard, W, Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Murchison, Sir C. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fielden, E. B.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Withers, John James


Ford, Sir P. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wolmer, Viscount


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Forrest, W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Owen, Major G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Frederick George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wragg, Herbert


Ganzoni, Sir John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Gates, Percy
Radford, E. A.



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

Original Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose—

Sir K. WOOD rose in his place, and

claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 75.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[11.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Atholl, Duchess of


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Apsley, Lord
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Albery, Irving James
Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Balniel, Lord


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ropner, Major L.


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Russell Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rye, F. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Salmon, Major I.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brass, Captain W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D,


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Savery, S. S.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Campbell, E. T.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Skelton, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jacob, A. E.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Storry-Deans, R.


Couper, J. B.
Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacIntyre, Ian
Sudden, Sir Wilfrid


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
McLean, Major A.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Tinne, J. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Waddington, R.


England, Colonel A.
Merriman, F. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Watts, Dr. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wells, S. R.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Monsell, Eyres, Com, Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Murchison, Sir C. K.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Forrest, W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Withers, John James


Ganzoni, Sir John
Owen, Major G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Goff, Sir Park
Radford, E. A.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gower, Sir Robert
Raine, W.
Wragg, Herbert


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsden, E.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rawson, Sir Cooper



Grotrian, H. Brent
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, J. R.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Major Cope.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Riley, Ben


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scrymgeour, E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Scurr, John


Day, Colonel Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sexton, James


Duncan, C.
Kirkwood, D
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lansbury, George
Smillie, Robert


Gardner, J. P.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.
Snell, Harry


Greenall, T.
Mackinder, W.
Stamford, T. W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Grundy, T. W.
March, S.
Sullivan, J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.
Sutton, J. E.




Thomson Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Westwood, J.
Windsor, Walter


Tinker, John Joseph
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, W.



Viant, S. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Charles Edwards.


Welsh, J. C.




Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1926 be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I do not wish to oppose this, but I think the House is entitled to some information. What is the idea of estimating income and expenditure for a year that has closed? Surely they know the income and the expenditure for the year that is finished? Are not the accounts approved and put forward in a proper manner?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Yes, they are put forward in the, ordinary manner. This is an annual return which is made in the same way every year. There is nothing unusual about it, and I do not think the hon. Member need worry about it any way. It is in the ordinary course. The Estimate is made, and the House approves it in this way. If the hon. Member has any questions to ask concerning it, we can furnish the explanation required; but there is nothing unusual about it, and it
is the ordinary form in which it is always submitted to Parliament.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can I put down questions upon this subject in the ordinary course, and to whom?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. Member can ask any question he likes.

Mr. MACLEAN: To whom are the questions to be put?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: To me.

Resolved,
That the Statement, of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1926 be approved.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'clock.